White_JJ Mythologies_NN2 t_ZZ1 If_CS so-called_JJ '_GE so-called_JJ poststructuralism_NN1 '_GE is_VBZ the_AT product_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 single_JJ historical_JJ moment_NN1 ,_, then_RT that_DD1 moment_NN1 is_VBZ probably_RR not_XX May_NPM1 1968_MC but_CCB rather_RR the_AT Algerian_JJ War_NN1 of_IO Independence_NN1 no_RR21 doubt_RR22 itself_PPX1 both_RR a_AT1 symptom_NN1 and_CC a_AT1 product_NN1 ._. 
In_II this_DD1 respect_NN1 it_PPH1 is_VBZ significant_JJ that_CST Sartre_NP1 ,_, Althusser_NP1 ,_, Derrida_NP1 and_CC Lyotard_NP1 ,_, among_II others_NN2 ,_, were_VBDR all_DB either_RR born_VVN in_II Algeria_NP1 or_CC personally_RR involved_JJ with_IW the_AT events_NN2 of_IO the_AT war_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB let_VV0 us_PPIO2 begin_VVI instead_RR with_IW Hlne_NP1 Cixous_NP1 's_GE remarkable_JJ account_NN1 of_IO what_DDQ it_PPH1 was_VBDZ like_JJ to_TO grow_VVI up_RP as_II an_AT1 Algerian_JJ French_JJ Jewish_JJ girl_NN1 at_II that_DD1 time_NNT1 :_: I_PPIS1 learned_VVD everything_PN1 from_II this_DD1 first_MD spectacle_NN1 :_: I_PPIS1 saw_VVD how_RRQ the_AT white_JJ (_( French_NP1 )_) ,_, superior_JJ ,_, plutocratic_JJ ,_, civilized_JJ world_NN1 founded_VVD its_APPGE power_NN1 on_II the_AT repression_NN1 of_IO populations_NN2 who_PNQS had_VHD suddenly_RR become_VV0 '_GE invisible_JJ '_GE ,_, like_II proletarians_NN2 ,_, immigrant_JJ workers_NN2 ,_, minorities_NN2 who_PNQS are_VBR not_XX the_AT right_NN1 '_GE colour_NN1 '_GE ._. 
Women_NN2 ._. 
Invisible_JJ as_CSA humans_NN2 ._. 
But_CCB ,_, of_RR21 course_RR22 ,_, perceived_VVN as_CSA tools_NN2 dirty_VV0 ,_, stupid_JJ ,_, lazy_JJ ,_, underhanded_JJ ,_, etc_RA ._. 
Thanks_II21 to_II22 some_DD annihilating_JJ dialectical_JJ magic_NN1 ._. 
I_PPIS1 saw_VVD that_CST the_AT great_JJ ,_, noble_JJ ,_, '_GE advanced_JJ '_GE countries_NN2 established_VVD themselves_PPX2 by_II expelling_VVG what_DDQ was_58 '_GE strange_JJ '_GE ;_; excluding_VVG it_PPH1 but_CCB not_XX dismissing_VVG it_PPH1 ;_; enslaving_VVG it_PPH1 ._. 
A_AT1 commonplace_JJ gesture_NN1 of_IO History_NN1 :_: there_EX have_VH0 to_TO be_VBI two_MC races_VVZ the_AT masters_NN2 and_CC the_AT slaves_NN2 ._. 
Cixous_NP1 has_VHZ been_VBN criticized_VVN for_IF lacking_VVG a_AT1 politics_NN1 and_CC a_AT1 theory_NN1 of_IO the_AT social_JJ ._. 
According_II21 to_II22 some_DD criteria_NN2 perhaps_RR ,_, but_CCB if_CS so_CS they_PPHS2 would_VM have_VHI to_TO exclude_VVI from_II '_GE the_AT political_JJ ,_, considerations_NN2 such_II21 as_II22 those_DD2 described_VVN here_RL ._. 
Which_DDQ is_VBZ precisely_RR the_AT point_NN1 :_: if_CS there_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 politics_NN1 to_II what_DDQ has_VHZ become_VVN known_VVN as_II poststructuralism_NN1 ,_, then_RT it_PPH1 is_VBZ articulated_VVN in_II this_DD1 passage_NN1 which_DDQ unnervingly_RR weaves_VVZ capitalist_JJ economic_JJ exploitation_NN1 ,_, racism_NN1 ,_, colonialism_NN1 ,_, sexism_NN1 ,_, together_RL with_IW ,_, perhaps_RR unexpectedly_RR ,_, '_GE History_NN1 '_GE and_CC the_AT structure_NN1 of_IO the_AT Hegelian_JJ dialectic_NN1 ._. 
A_AT1 lot_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN said_VVN already_RR in_II the_AT English-speaking_JJ world_NN1 about_II poststructuralism_NN1 and_CC politics_NN1 ,_, much_DA1 of_IO it_PPH1 in_II the_AT accusatory_JJ mode_NN1 voiced_VVN from_II the_AT opposing_JJ class-based_JJ verities_NN2 of_IO '_GE tradition_NN1 '_GE or_CC '_GE History_NN1 '_GE ._. 
Such_DA apparently_RR secure_JJ grounds_NN2 of_IO objection_NN1 amount_NN1 to_II two_MC narratives_NN2 ;_; their_APPGE intriguing_JJ similarity_NN1 brings_VVZ out_RP the_AT extent_NN1 to_II which_DDQ poststructuralism_NN1 challenges_NN2 not_XX just_RR the_AT politics_NN1 and_CC institutions_NN2 of_IO the_AT right_NN1 but_CCB also_RR the_AT politics_NN1 and_CC theoretical_JJ systems_NN2 of_IO the_AT left_JJ ._. 
Disturbing_JJ conventional_JJ assumptions_NN2 about_II what_DDQ constitutes_58 '_GE the_AT political_JJ '_GE ,_, poststructuralism_NN1 is_VBZ correspondingly_RR difficult_JJ to_TO place_VVI itself_PPX1 ._. 
In_II the_AT passage_NN1 just_RR cited_VVN for_REX21 example_REX22 it_PPH1 is_VBZ striking_VVG that_CST Cixous_NP1 includes_VVZ the_AT Hegelian_JJ dialectic_NN1 in_II the_AT forms_NN2 of_IO political_JJ oppression_NN1 which_DDQ she_PPHS1 describes_VVZ ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 question_NN1 of_IO showing_VVG that_CST such_DA an_AT1 allegation_NN1 misinterprets_VVZ or_CC simplifies_VVZ Hegel_NP1 's_GE texts_NN2 ._. 
Of_RR21 course_RR22 it_PPH1 does_VDZ ._. 
The_AT problem_NN1 involves_VVZ rather_RG the_AT ways_NN2 in_II which_DDQ Hegel_NP1 has_VHZ been_VBN read_VVN ,_, absorbed_JJ and_CC adapted_VVN ._. 
Nor_CC is_VBZ it_PPH1 just_RR the_AT Hegelian_JJ dialectic_NN1 as_II such_DA :_: Cixous_NP1 includes_58 '_GE History_NN1 '_GE ,_, and_CC by_II implication_NN1 therefore_RR Marxism_NN1 as_RR21 well_RR22 ._. 
This_DD1 can_VM not_XX simply_RR be_VBI dismissed_VVN as_CSA another_DD1 New_JJ Right_JJ invocation_NN1 of_IO the_AT Gulag_NN1 ,_, for_IF Cixous_NP1 is_VBZ arguing_VVG something_PN1 much_RR more_RGR specific_JJ :_: that_DD1 Marxism_NN1 ,_, insofar_CS21 as_CS22 it_PPH1 inherits_VVZ the_AT system_NN1 of_IO the_AT Hegelian_JJ dialectic_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ also_RR implicated_VVN in_II the_AT link_NN1 between_II the_AT structures_NN2 of_IO knowledge_NN1 and_CC the_AT forms_NN2 of_IO oppression_NN1 of_IO the_AT last_MD two_MC hundred_NNO years_NNT2 :_: a_AT1 phenomenon_NN1 that_CST has_VHZ become_VVN known_VVN as_II Eurocentrism_NN1 ._. 
To_II this_DD1 extent_NN1 ,_, Marxism_NN1 's_VBZ universalizing_VVG narrative_NN1 of_IO the_AT unfolding_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 rational_JJ system_NN1 of_IO world_NN1 history_NN1 is_VBZ simply_RR a_AT1 negative_JJ form_NN1 of_IO the_AT history_NN1 of_IO European_JJ imperialism_NN1 :_: it_PPH1 was_VBDZ Hegel_NP1 ,_, after_II all_DB ,_, who_PNQS declared_VVD that_DD1 '_VBZ Africa_NP1 has_VHZ no_AT history_NN1 '_GE ,_, and_CC it_PPH1 was_VBDZ Marx_NP1 who_PNQS ,_, though_CS critical_JJ of_IO British_JJ imperialism_NN1 ,_, concluded_VVD that_CST the_AT British_JJ colonization_NN1 of_IO India_NP1 was_VBDZ ultimately_RR for_IF the_AT best_RRT because_CS it_PPH1 brought_VVD India_NP1 into_II the_AT evolutionary_JJ narrative_NN1 of_IO Western_JJ history_NN1 ,_, thus_RR creating_VVG the_AT conditions_NN2 for_IF future_JJ class_NN1 struggle_NN1 there_RL ._. 
Such_DA an_AT1 arrogant_JJ and_CC arrogating_VVG narrative_NN1 means_VVZ that_CST the_AT story_NN1 of_IO '_GE world_NN1 history_NN1 '_GE not_XX only_RR involves_VVZ what_DDQ Fredric_NP1 Jameson_NP1 describes_VVZ as_II the_AT wresting_NN1 of_IO freedom_NN1 from_II the_AT realm_NN1 of_IO necessity_NN1 but_CCB always_RR also_RR the_AT creation_NN1 ,_, subjection_NN1 and_CC final_JJ appropriation_NN1 of_IO Europe_NP1 's_GE '_GE others_NN2 '_GE ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ why_RRQ '_GE History_NN1 '_GE ,_, which_DDQ for_IF Marxism_NN1 promises_VVZ liberation_NN1 ,_, for_IF Cixous_NP1 also_RR entails_VVZ another_DD1 forgotten_JJ story_NN1 of_IO oppression_NN1 :_: Already_RR I_PPIS1 know_VV0 all_DB about_II the_AT '_GE reality_NN1 '_GE that_DD1 supports_VVZ History_NN1 's_GE progress_NN1 :_: everything_PN1 throughout_II the_AT centuries_NNT2 depends_VVZ on_II the_AT distinction_NN1 between_II the_AT Selfsame_DA ,_, the_AT ownself_PPX1 ..._... and_CC that_DD1 which_DDQ limits_VVZ it_PPH1 :_: so_RR now_RT what_DDQ menaces_VVZ my-own-good_JJ ..._... is_VBZ the_AT '_GE other_NN1 '_GE ._. 
What_DDQ is_VBZ the_AT '_GE Other_NN1 '_GE ?_? 
If_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ truly_RR the_AT '_GE other_NN1 '_GE ,_, there_EX is_VBZ nothing_PN1 to_TO say_VVI ;_; it_PPH1 can_VM not_XX be_VBI theorized_VVN ._. 
The_AT '_GE other_NN1 '_GE escapes_VVZ me_PPIO1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ elsewhere_RL ,_, outside_RL :_: absolutely_RR other_JJ ._. 
It_PPH1 does_VDZ n't_XX settle_VVI down_RP ._. 
But_CCB in_II History_NN1 ,_, of_RR21 course_RR22 ,_, what_DDQ is_VBZ called_VVN ,_, other'_NN1 is_VBZ an_AT1 alterity_NN1 that_CST does_VDZ settle_VVI down_RP ,_, that_DD1 falls_VVZ into_II the_AT dialectical_JJ circle_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ the_AT other_JJ in_II a_AT1 hierarchically_RR organized_VVN relationship_NN1 in_II which_DDQ the_AT same_DA is_VBZ what_DDQ rules_VVZ ,_, names_NN2 ,_, defines_VVZ ,_, and_CC assigns_58 '_GE its_58 '_GE other_JJ ._. 
With_IW the_AT dreadful_JJ simplicity_NN1 that_CST orders_VVZ the_AT movement_NN1 Hegel_NP1 erected_VVD as_II a_AT1 system_NN1 ,_, society_NN1 trots_VVZ along_RP before_II my_APPGE eyes_NN2 reproducing_VVG to_II perfection_NN1 the_AT mechanism_NN1 of_IO the_AT death_NN1 struggle_NN1 :_: the_AT reduction_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 '_GE person_NN1 ,_, to_II a_AT1 '_" nobody_PN1 '_GE to_II the_AT position_NN1 of_IO '_GE other_NN1 '_GE the_AT inexorable_JJ plot_NN1 of_IO racism_NN1 ._. 
There_EX has_VHZ to_TO be_VBI some_DD '_GE other_NN1 '_GE no_AT master_NN1 without_IW a_AT1 slave_NN1 ,_, no_AT economico-political_JJ power_NN1 without_IW exploitation_NN1 ,_, no_AT dominant_JJ class_NN1 without_IW cattle_NN2 under_II the_AT yoke_NN1 ,_, no_NN1 '_GE Frenchmen_NN2 '_GE without_IW wogs_NN2 ,_, no_AT Nazis_NN2 without_IW Jews_NN2 ,_, no_AT property_NN1 without_IW exclusion_NN1 an_AT1 exclusion_NN1 that_CST has_VHZ its_APPGE limits_NN2 and_CC is_VBZ part_NN1 of_IO the_AT dialectic._NNU (_( 701_MC )_) Not_XX that_CST Hegel_NP1 himself_PPX1 is_VBZ responsible_JJ ._. 
Rather_RR the_AT problem_NN1 ,_, Cixous_NP1 argues_VVZ ,_, is_VBZ that_DD1 unfortunately_RR Hegel_NP1 was_VBDZ n't_XX inventing_VVG things_NN2 ._. 
The_AT entire_JJ Hegelian_JJ machinery_NN1 simply_RR lays_VVZ down_RP the_AT operation_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 system_NN1 already_RR in_II place_NN1 ,_, already_RR operating_VVG in_II everyday_JJ life_NN1 ._. 
Politics_NN1 and_CC knowledge_NN1 have_VH0 worked_VVN according_II21 to_II22 the_AT same_DA Hegelian_JJ dialectic_NN1 ,_, with_IW its_58 '_GE phallo-logocentric_JJ Aufhebung_NP1 '_GE whether_CSW it_PPH1 be_VBI Marxism_NN1 's_GE History_NN1 ,_, Europe_NP1 's_GE colonial_JJ annexations_NN2 and_CC accompanying_JJ racism_NN1 or_CC orientalist_NN1 scholarship_NN1 ,_, or_CC ,_, in_II a_AT1 typical_JJ conflation_NN1 of_IO patriarchy_NN1 and_CC colonialism_NN1 ,_, Freud_NP1 's_GE characterization_NN1 of_IO femininity_NN1 as_II the_AT dark_JJ unexplored_JJ continent_NN1 (_( '_GE within_II his_APPGE economy_NN1 ,_, she_PPHS1 is_VBZ the_AT strangeness_NN1 he_PPHS1 likes_VVZ to_TO appropriate'_VVI &lsqb;_( 68_MC &rsqb;_) )_) ._. 
For_IF even_RR Freud_NP1 ,_, according_II21 to_II22 Cixous_NP1 ,_, has_VHZ not_XX helped_VVN in_II any_DD project_NN1 to_TO separate_VVI history_NN1 from_II the_AT history_NN1 of_IO appropriation_NN1 or_CC that_DD1 of_IO phallocentrism_NN1 ._. 
The_AT patriarchal_JJ structures_NN2 of_IO psychoanalytic_JJ theory_NN1 have_VH0 often_RR been_VBN defended_VVN on_II the_AT grounds_NN2 that_CST they_PPHS2 only_RR describe_VV0 the_AT current_JJ customs_NN2 of_IO a_AT1 patriarchal_JJ society_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB this_DD1 does_VDZ not_XX alter_VVI the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST psychoanalysis_NN1 therefore_RR repeats_VVZ the_AT same_DA masculine_NN1 '_GE Empire_NN1 of_IO the_AT Selfsame_DA '_GE ,_, and_CC that_CST as_CS31 soon_CS32 as_CS33 such_DA descriptions_NN2 become_VV0 institutionalized_JJ as_CSA a_AT1 structure_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 ,_, or_CC as_RG psychoanalytic_JJ practice_NN1 then_RT they_PPHS2 become_VV0 agents_NN2 of_IO the_AT system_NN1 they_PPHS2 describe_VV0 ._. 
The_AT point_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO change_VVI it_PPH1 ._. 
But_CCB why_RRQ this_DD1 emphasis_NN1 on_II Hegel_NP1 ?_? 
The_AT problem_NN1 of_IO the_AT Hegelian_JJ model_NN1 ,_, particularly_RR of_IO a_AT1 historicism_NN1 which_DDQ presupposes_VVZ a_AT1 governing_JJ structure_NN1 of_IO self-realization_NN1 in_II all_DB historical_JJ process_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ by_RR31 no_RR32 means_RR33 confined_VVN to_II post-war_JJ French_JJ Marxism_NN1 ,_, but_CCB the_AT dominance_NN1 of_IO Hegelian_JJ Marxism_NN1 from_II the_AT thirties_MC2 to_II the_AT fifties_MC2 does_VDZ explain_VVI the_AT particular_JJ context_NN1 for_IF the_AT French_JJ poststructuralist_NN1 assault_NN1 ._. 
Here_RL it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 question_NN1 of_IO suggesting_VVG that_CST Hegel_NP1 is_VBZ somehow_RR answerable_JJ for_IF the_AT excesses_NN2 of_IO capitalism_NN1 or_CC even_RR socialism_NN1 in_II the_AT past_JJ two_MC hundred_NNO years_NNT2 :_: rather_RG what_DDQ is_VBZ at_II stake_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT argument_NN1 that_CST the_AT dominant_JJ force_NN1 of_IO opposition_NN1 to_II capitalism_NN1 ,_, Marxism_NN1 ,_, as_CSA a_AT1 body_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 itself_PPX1 remains_VVZ complicit_NN1 with_IW ,_, and_CC even_RR extends_VVZ ,_, the_AT system_NN1 to_II which_DDQ it_PPH1 is_VBZ opposed_VVN ._. 
Hegel_NN1 articulates_VVZ a_AT1 philosophical_JJ structure_NN1 of_IO the_AT appropriation_NN1 of_IO the_AT other_JJ as_II a_AT1 form_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 which_DDQ uncannily_RR simulates_VVZ the_AT project_NN1 of_IO nineteenth-century_JJ imperialism_NN1 ;_; the_AT construction_NN1 of_IO knowledges_NN2 which_DDQ all_DB operate_VV0 through_II forms_NN2 of_IO expropriation_NN1 and_CC incorporation_NN1 of_IO the_AT other_NN1 mimics_VVZ it_PPH1 a_AT1 conceptual_JJ level_NN1 the_AT geographical_JJ and_CC economic_JJ absorption_NN1 of_IO the_AT non-European_JJ world_NN1 by_II the_AT West_ND1 ._. 
Marxism_NN1 's_VBZ standing_VVG Hegel_NP1 on_II his_APPGE head_NN1 may_VM have_VHI reversed_VVN his_APPGE idealism_NN1 ,_, but_CCB it_PPH1 did_VDD not_XX change_VVI the_AT mode_NN1 of_IO operation_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 conceptual_JJ system_NN1 which_DDQ remains_VVZ collusively_RR Eurocentric_JJ ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ thus_RR entirely_RR appropriate_JJ that_CST Hegelian_JJ Marxism_NN1 has_VHZ become_VVN generally_RR known_VVN as_98 '_GE Western_JJ Marxism_NN1 '_GE ._. 
As_CSA Cixous_NP1 suggests_VVZ ,_, the_AT mode_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 as_II a_AT1 politics_NN1 of_IO arrogation_NN1 pivots_VVZ at_II a_AT1 theoretical_JJ level_NN1 on_II the_AT dialectic_NN1 of_IO the_AT same_DA and_CC the_AT other_JJ ._. 
Such_DA knowledge_NN1 is_VBZ always_RR centred_VVN in_II a_AT1 self_NN1 even_CS21 though_CS22 it_PPH1 is_VBZ outward_RL looking_VVG ,_, searching_VVG for_IF power_NN1 and_CC control_NN1 of_IO what_DDQ is_VBZ other_JJ to_II it_PPH1 ._. 
Anthropology_NN1 has_VHZ always_RR provided_VVN the_AT clearest_JJT symptomatic_JJ instance_NN1 ,_, as_CSA was_VBDZ foreseen_VVN by_II Rousseau_NP1 from_II the_AT outset_NN1 ._. 
History_NN1 ,_, with_IW a_AT1 capital_NN1 H_ZZ1 ,_, similarly_RR can_VM not_XX tolerate_VVI otherness_NN1 or_CC leave_VV0 it_PPH1 outside_II its_APPGE economy_NN1 of_IO inclusion_NN1 ._. 
The_AT appropriation_NN1 of_IO the_AT other_JJ as_II a_AT1 form_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 within_II a_AT1 totalizing_JJ system_NN1 can_VM thus_RR be_VBI set_VVN alongside_II the_AT history_NN1 (_( if_CS not_XX the_AT project_NN1 )_) of_IO European_JJ imperialism_NN1 ,_, and_CC the_AT constitution_NN1 of_IO the_AT other_JJ as_58 '_GE other_NN1 '_GE alongside_II racism_NN1 and_CC sexism_NN1 ._. 
The_AT reaction_NN1 against_II this_DD1 structure_NN1 has_VHZ produced_VVN forms_NN2 of_IO politics_NN1 that_CST do_VD0 not_XX fit_VVI into_II traditional_JJ political_JJ categories_NN2 ._. 
Here_RL the_AT problem_NN1 rests_VVZ on_II the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST for_IF orthodox_JJ Marxism_NN1 there_EX can_VM be_VBI only_RR one_PN1 '_GE other_NN1 '_GE ,_, that_DD1 of_IO the_AT working_JJ class_NN1 ,_, into_II which_DDQ all_DB other_JJ oppressed_JJ groups_NN2 ,_, so-called_JJ '_GE minorities_NN2 '_GE ,_, must_VM in_II the_AT last_MD instance_NN1 be_VBI subsumed_VVN ._. 
Such_DA a_AT1 position_NN1 is_VBZ by_RR31 no_RR32 means_RR33 confined_VVN to_II a_AT1 Marxism_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 Stalinist_JJ past_NN1 ._. 
In_II Making_VVG History_NN1 ,_, published_VVN in_II 1987_MC ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, Alex_NP1 Callinicos_NP2 argues_VVZ that_CST the_AT so-called_JJ poststructuralist_NN1 critique_NN1 of_IO the_AT category_NN1 of_IO the_AT subject_NN1 can_VM be_VBI avoided_VVN by_II shifting_VVG the_AT subject_NN1 out_II21 of_II22 the_AT problematic_JJ realm_NN1 of_IO consciousness_NN1 into_II a_AT1 theory_NN1 of_IO human_JJ agency_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 provides_VVZ something_PN1 closer_RRR to_II historical_JJ Marxism_NN1 ,_, although_CS it_PPH1 does_VDZ mean_VVI that_CST he_PPHS1 quickly_RR becomes_VVZ involved_JJ in_II assumptions_NN2 about_II rationality_NN1 and_CC intentionality_NN1 ,_, and_CC has_VHZ to_TO propose_VVI a_AT1 '_GE principle_NN1 of_IO Humanity_NN1 '_GE ,_, that_DD1 is_VBZ a_AT1 common_JJ human_JJ nature_NN1 ,_, to_TO hold_VVI them_PPHO2 all_DB together_RL ._. 
Perhaps_RR not_XX unexpectedly_RR ,_, the_AT '_GE Principle_NN1 of_IO Humanity_NN1 '_GE also_RR turns_VVZ out_RP to_TO involve_VVI the_AT assumption_NN1 that_CST class_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT primary_JJ form_NN1 of_IO collective_JJ agency_NN1 ,_, because_CS ,_, we_PPIS2 are_VBR told_VVN ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ more_RGR fundamental_JJ than_CSN any_DD other_JJ interests_NN2 or_CC forms_NN2 of_IO social_JJ power_NN1 ._. 
Callinicos_NP1 writes_VVZ :_: Feminists_NN2 and_CC black_JJ nationalists_NN2 &lsqb;_( sic_RR &rsqb;_) often_RR complain_VV0 that_CST the_AT concepts_NN2 of_IO Marxist_JJ class_NN1 theory_NN1 are_VBR '_GE gender-blind_NN1 '_GE and_CC '_GE race-blind_NN1 '_GE ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ indeed_RR true_JJ ._. 
Agents_NN2 '_GE class_NN1 position_NN1 derives_VVZ from_II their_APPGE place_NN1 in_II production_NN1 relations_NN2 ,_, not_XX their_APPGE gender_NN1 or_CC supposed_JJ race_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB of_IO itself_PPX1 this_DD1 does_VDZ not_XX provide_VVI grounds_NN2 for_IF rejecting_VVG Marxism_NN1 ,_, since_CS its_APPGE chief_JJ theoretical_JJ claim_NN1 is_VBZ precisely_RR to_TO explain_VVI power-relations_NN2 and_CC forms_NN2 of_IO conflict_NN1 such_II21 as_II22 those_DD2 denoted_VVN by_II the_AT terms_NN2 '_GE nation_NN1 '_GE ,_, '_GE gender_NN1 '_GE and_CC '_GE race_NN1 '_GE in_II31 terms_II32 of_II33 the_AT forces_NN2 and_CC relations_NN2 of_IO production_NN1 ._. 
The_AT mere_JJ existence_NN1 of_IO national_JJ ,_, sexual_JJ and_CC racial_JJ oppression_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX refute_VVI historical_JJ materialism_NN1 ,_, but_CCB rather_RR constitutes_VVZ its_APPGE explanandum_NN1 ._. 
The_AT only_JJ interesting_JJ question_NN1 is_VBZ whether_CSW31 or_CSW32 not_CSW33 Marxism_NN1 can_VM actually_RR explain_VVI these_DD2 phenomena_NN2 ._. 
The_AT only_JJ interesting_JJ question_NN1 ?_? 
So_RR as_CS31 long_CS32 as_CS33 gender_NN1 and_CC race_NN1 can_VM be_VBI satisfactorily_RR subordinated_VVN to_II class_NN1 then_RT Marxism_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX need_VVI refuting_VVG ,_, and_CC history_NN1 can_VM be_VBI reasserted_VVN as_II the_AT single_JJ narrative_NN1 of_IO the_AT Third_MD International_JJ ._. 
Conversely_RR ,_, as_CSA Callinicos_NN2 implicitly_RR recognizes_VVZ ,_, the_AT problem_NN1 with_IW contemporary_JJ politics_NN1 for_IF the_AT left_NN1 is_VBZ that_CST the_AT dialectic_NN1 of_IO class_NN1 depends_VVZ on_II a_AT1 historicist_NN1 History_NN1 and_CC vice_RR21 versa_RR22 ;_; any_DD failure_NN1 of_IO the_AT former_DA necessarily_RR also_RR involves_VVZ a_AT1 waning_NN1 of_IO the_AT latter_DA ._. 
Marxism_NN1 's_GE inability_NN1 to_TO deal_VVI with_IW the_AT political_JJ interventions_NN2 of_IO other_JJ oppositional_JJ groups_NN2 has_VHZ meant_VVN that_CST its_APPGE History_NN1 can_VM no_RR21 longer_RR22 claim_VVI to_TO subsume_VVI all_DB processes_NN2 of_IO change_NN1 ._. 
The_AT straightforward_JJ oppositional_JJ structure_NN1 of_IO capital_NN1 and_CC class_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX necessarily_RR work_VVI any_RR more_RRR :_: if_CS we_PPIS2 think_VV0 in_II31 terms_II32 of_II33 Hegel_NP1 's_GE master/slave_NN1 dialectic_NN1 ,_, then_RT rather_II21 than_II22 the_AT working_JJ class_NN1 being_VBG the_AT obvious_JJ universal_JJ subject-victim_NN1 ,_, many_DA2 others_NN2 are_VBR also_RR oppressed_VVN :_: particularly_RR women_NN2 ,_, black_JJ people_NN ,_, and_CC all_DB other_JJ so-called_JJ ethnic_JJ and_CC minority_NN1 groups_NN2 ._. 
Any_DD single_JJ individual_NN1 may_VM belong_VVI to_II several_DA2 of_IO these_DD2 ,_, but_CCB the_AT forms_NN2 of_IO oppression_NN1 ,_, as_II21 of_II22 resistance_NN1 or_CC change_NN1 ,_, may_VM not_XX only_RR overlap_VVI but_CCB may_VM also_RR differ_VVI or_CC even_RR conflict_VVI ._. 
As_CS31 soon_CS32 as_CS33 there_EX is_VBZ no_RR21 longer_RR22 a_AT1 single_JJ master_NN1 and_CC no_AT single_JJ slave_NN1 ,_, then_RT the_AT classic_JJ Hegelian_JJ reversal_NN1 model_NN1 on_II which_DDQ Marxism_NN1 depends_VVZ and_CC on_II which_DDQ it_PPH1 bases_VVZ its_APPGE theory_NN1 of_IO revolution_NN1 (_( literally_RR ,_, an_AT1 overturning_NN1 )_) is_VBZ no_RR21 longer_RR22 adequate_JJ ._. 
In_II fact_NN1 it_PPH1 is_VBZ arguable_JJ whether_CSW such_DA dualistic_JJ conditions_NN2 ever_RR existed_VVD anyway_RR :_: marginal_JJ groups_NN2 which_DDQ could_VM not_XX be_VBI assimilated_VVN into_II the_AT category_NN1 of_IO the_AT working_JJ class_NN1 were_VBDR merely_RR relegated_VVN by_II Marx_NP1 to_II the_AT Lumpenproletariat_NN1 ._. 
Even_RR the_AT formulation_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 dualistic_JJ class_NN1 division_NN1 ,_, Laclau_NP1 and_CC Mouffe_NP1 have_VH0 argued_VVN persuasively_RR ,_, is_VBZ itself_PPX1 nothing_PN1 less_DAR than_CSN a_AT1 nostalgic_JJ attempt_NN1 to_TO recreate_VVI for_IF the_AT nineteenth_MD century_NNT1 the_AT imagined_JJ simplicity_NN1 of_IO the_AT conditions_NN2 of_IO the_AT aristocracy/bourgeoisie_NN1 conflict_NN1 of_IO the_AT French_JJ Revolution_NN1 which_DDQ had_VHD originally_RR inspired_VVN Hegel_NP1 ._. 
A_AT1 similarly_RR straightforward_JJ opposition_NN1 also_RR provides_VVZ much_DA1 of_IO the_AT attraction_NN1 which_DDQ has_VHZ fuelled_VVN the_AT recent_JJ growth_NN1 of_IO interest_NN1 in_II the_AT historical_JJ analysis_NN1 of_IO colonialism_NN1 in_II which_DDQ you_PPY apparently_RR have_VH0 the_AT simple_JJ binary_NN1 of_IO master_NN1 and_CC slave_NN1 ,_, colonizer_NN1 and_CC colonized_VVD ._. 
With_IW colonialism_NN1 it_PPH1 's_VBZ easy_JJ to_TO tell_VVI the_AT good_JJ guys_NN2 from_II the_AT bad_JJ guys_NN2 ,_, which_DDQ makes_VVZ it_PPH1 tempting_JJ to_TO substitute_VVI the_AT colonized_JJ for_IF the_AT lost_JJ working_JJ class_NN1 ._. 
Already_RR in_II 1957_MC Roland_NP1 Barthes_NP1 was_VBDZ claiming_VVG that_DD1 '_VBZ today_RT it_PPH1 is_VBZ the_AT colonized_JJ peoples_NN2 who_PNQS assume_VV0 the_AT full_JJ ethical_JJ and_CC political_JJ condition_NN1 described_VVN by_II Marx_NP1 as_II being_VBG that_DD1 of_IO the_AT proletariat_NN1 '_GE ._. 
But_CCB politics_NN1 today_RT are_VBR much_RR more_RGR complex_JJ ,_, much_RR more_RGR difficult_JJ to_TO disentangle_VVI ._. 
The_AT dialectical_JJ structure_NN1 of_IO oppositional_JJ politics_NN1 no_RR21 longer_RR22 works_VVZ for_IF the_AT micro-politics_NN1 of_IO the_AT post-war_JJ period_NN1 in_II the_AT West_ND1 ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ the_AT context_NN1 of_IO Foucault_NP1 's_GE critique_NN1 of_IO what_DDQ he_PPHS1 calls_VVZ the_AT sovereign_JJ model_NN1 of_IO power_NN1 ,_, of_IO the_AT idea_NN1 that_CST power_NN1 has_VHZ a_AT1 single_JJ source_NN1 in_II a_AT1 master_NN1 ,_, king_NN1 ,_, or_CC class_NN1 and_CC can_VM thus_RR easily_RR be_VBI reversed_VVN ._. 
This_DD1 shift_NN1 from_II a_AT1 conflictual_JJ dyadic_JJ political_JJ structure_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX simply_RR a_AT1 question_NN1 of_IO historical_JJ change_NN1 ,_, of_IO the_AT recent_JJ appearance_NN1 of_IO '_GE minorities_NN2 '_GE :_: after_II all_DB the_AT slave_NN1 was_VBDZ already_RR constituted_VVN simultaneously_RR according_II21 to_II22 different_JJ groups_NN2 (_( for_REX21 example_REX22 male_NN1 or_CC female_NN1 )_) ,_, the_AT Lumpenproletariat_NN1 always_RR had_VHN to_TO be_VBI excluded_VVN ._. 
The_AT problem_NN1 begins_VVZ at_II a_AT1 conceptual_JJ level_NN1 with_IW the_AT initial_JJ division_NN1 between_II master_NN1 and_CC slave_NN1 as_II such_DA ,_, as_CS21 if_CS22 relations_NN2 of_IO power_NN1 work_NN1 according_II21 to_II22 the_AT binary_JJ opposition_NN1 of_IO Hegel_NP1 's_GE fight_NN1 to_II the_AT death_NN1 between_II two_MC individuals_NN2 ._. 
This_DD1 structure_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX ,_, as_CSA might_VM at_RR21 first_RR22 be_VBI imagined_VVN ,_, derived_VVN from_II a_AT1 fantasy_NN1 of_IO power_NN1 relations_NN2 modelled_VVN on_II a_AT1 medieval_JJ joust_NN1 but_CCB from_II the_AT phenomenological_JJ account_NN1 of_IO the_AT constitution_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 that_CST works_VVZ according_II21 to_II22 the_AT structure_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 subject_NN1 perceiving_VVG an_AT1 object_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 same/other_FU dialectic_NN1 in_II which_DDQ the_AT other_NN1 is_VBZ first_MD constituted_VVN by_II the_AT same_DA through_II its_APPGE negation_NN1 as_CSA other_JJ before_II being_VBG incorporated_VVN within_II it_PPH1 ._. 
No_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO dialogue_NN1 or_CC exchange_VV0 here_RL ._. 
As_CSA Cixous_NP1 argues_VVZ ,_, nor_CC can_VM there_EX be_VBI any_DD place_NN1 in_II this_DD1 schema_NN1 for_IF the_AT other_JJ as_CSA other_JJ ,_, unless_CS it_PPH1 becomes_VVZ ,_, like_II God_NP1 ,_, an_AT1 absolute_JJ other_JJ ,_, literally_RR unknowable_JJ ._. 
The_AT difficulties_NN2 which_DDQ arise_VV0 from_II this_DD1 structure_NN1 are_VBR familiar_JJ from_II the_AT debates_NN2 in_II feminism_NN1 ,_, where_RRQ ,_, woman_NN1 ,_, seems_VVZ to_TO be_VBI offered_VVN an_AT1 alternative_NN1 of_IO either_DD1 being_VBG the_AT '_GE other_NN1 '_GE as_CSA constituted_VVN by_II man_NN1 ,_, that_REX21 is_REX22 ,_, conforming_VVG to_II the_AT stereotypes_NN2 of_IO patriarchy_NN1 ,_, or_CC ,_, if_CS she_PPHS1 is_VBZ to_TO avoid_VVI this_DD1 ,_, of_IO being_VBG an_AT1 absolute_JJ '_GE other_NN1 '_GE outside_JJ knowledge_NN1 ,_, necessarily_RR confined_VVN to_II inarticulate_JJ expressions_NN2 of_IO mysticism_NN1 or_CC jouissance_NN1 ._. 
The_AT only_JJ way_NN1 to_TO side-step_VVI these_DD2 alternatives_NN2 seems_VVZ to_TO be_VBI to_TO reject_VVI the_AT other_JJ altogether_RR and_CC become_VVI the_AT same_DA ,_, that_REX21 is_REX22 ,_, equal_JJ to_II men_NN2 but_CCB then_RT with_IW no_AT difference_NN1 from_II them_PPHO2 ._. 
Exactly_RR the_AT same_DA double_JJ bind_NN1 is_VBZ encountered_VVN in_II any_DD theorization_NN1 of_IO racial_JJ difference_NN1 ._. 
In_II his_APPGE influential_JJ Le_NP1 Mme_NP1 et_NP1 l'autre_NN1 Vincent_NP1 Descombes_NP2 has_VHZ described_VVN the_AT entire_JJ history_NN1 of_IO twentieth-century_JJ philosophy_NN1 in_II France_NP1 as_II a_AT1 succession_NN1 of_IO moves_NN2 which_DDQ attempt_VV0 to_TO get_VVI out_II21 of_II22 this_DD1 Hegelian_JJ dialectic_NN1 :_: the_AT recent_JJ phenomenon_NN1 of_IO poststructuralism_NN1 is_VBZ part_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 long_JJ philosophical_JJ story_NN1 and_CC distinguished_JJ only_JJ by_II what_DDQ appears_VVZ to_TO be_VBI a_AT1 certain_JJ success_NN1 ,_, or_CC at_RR21 least_RR22 an_AT1 avoidance_NN1 of_IO failure_NN1 to_II the_AT extent_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 has_VHZ at_RR21 least_RR22 managed_VVN to_TO keep_VVI the_AT game_NN1 with_IW Hegel_NP1 in_II play_NN1 ._. 
The_AT real_JJ difficulty_NN1 has_VHZ always_RR been_VBN to_TO find_VVI an_AT1 alternative_NN1 to_II the_AT Hegelian_JJ dialectic_NN1 difficult_JJ because_CS strictly_RR speaking_VVG it_PPH1 is_VBZ impossible_JJ ,_, insofar_CS21 as_CS22 the_AT operation_NN1 of_IO the_AT dialectic_NN1 already_RR includes_VVZ its_APPGE negation_NN1 ._. 
You_PPY can_VM not_XX get_VVI out_II21 of_II22 Hegel_NP1 by_II simply_RR contradicting_VVG him_PPHO1 ,_, any_DD more_DAR than_CSN you_PPY can_VM get_VVI out_II21 of_II22 those_DD2 other_JJ Hegelian_JJ systems_NN2 ,_, Marxism_NN1 and_CC psychoanalysis_NN1 ,_, by_II simply_RR opposing_VVG them_PPHO2 :_: for_IF in_II both_DB2 your_APPGE opposition_NN1 is_VBZ likewise_RR always_RR recuperable_JJ ,_, as_CSA the_AT workings_NN2 of_IO ideology_NN1 or_CC psychic_JJ resistance_NN1 ._. 
Nor_CC can_VM you_PPY get_VVI away_II21 from_II22 Hegel_NP1 by_II simply_RR removing_VVG him_PPHO1 ,_, like_II the_AT excision_NN1 of_IO Trotsky_NP1 from_II the_AT side_NN1 of_IO Lenin_NP1 in_II certain_JJ official_JJ Soviet_JJ photographs_NN2 ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ the_AT lesson_NN1 of_IO Althusser_NN1 ._. 
Althusser_NP1 's_GE historical_JJ interest_NN1 derives_VVZ from_II the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST he_PPHS1 represents_VVZ the_AT only_JJ orthodox_JJ Marxist_JJ theorist_NN1 who_PNQS has_VHZ tried_VVN to_TO get_VVI out_II21 of_II22 Hegel_NP1 while_CS remaining_VVG a_AT1 Marxist_JJ though_CS for_IF many_DA2 Marxists_NN2 he_PPHS1 did_VDD sacrifice_VVI Marxism_NN1 in_II the_AT process_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ only_RR suggests_VVZ how_RRQ closely_RR Marxism_NN1 and_CC Hegelianism_NN1 are_VBR intertwined_VVN ._. 
Althusser_NP1 's_GE theoretical_JJ interest_NN1 ,_, on_II the_AT other_JJ hand_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ that_DD1 he_PPHS1 demonstrates_VVZ the_AT impossibility_NN1 of_IO any_DD attempt_NN1 simply_RR to_TO exclude_VVI ,_, excise_NN1 or_CC extirpate_VV0 Hegel_NP1 ._. 
Other_JJ strategies_NN2 are_VBR required_VVN ._. 
II_MC HISTORICISM_NN1 AND_CC IMPERIALISM_NN1 Metaphysics_NN2 the_AT white_JJ mythology_NN1 which_DDQ reassembles_VVZ and_CC reflects_VVZ the_AT culture_NN1 of_IO the_AT West_ND1 :_: the_AT white_JJ man_NN1 takes_VVZ his_APPGE own_DA mythology_NN1 ,_, Indo-European_JJ mythology_NN1 ,_, his_APPGE own_DA logos_NN2 ,_, that_REX21 is_REX22 ,_, the_AT mythos_NN2 of_IO his_APPGE idiom_NN1 ,_, for_IF the_AT universal_JJ form_NN1 of_IO that_DD1 he_PPHS1 must_VM still_RR wish_VVI to_TO call_VVI Reason_NN1 ._. 
Jacques_NP1 Derrida_NP1 If_CS poststructuralism_NN1 has_VHZ involved_VVN an_AT1 attempted_JJ disruption_NN1 or_CC reworking_NN1 of_IO Hegelianism_NN1 through_II the_AT detection_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE own_DA fissures_NN2 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX by_II any_DD means_NN unique_JJ in_II such_DA an_AT1 enterprise_NN1 ._. 
For_IF ,_, as_CSA Foucault_NP1 argued_VVD in_II 1978_MC ,_, the_AT work_NN1 of_IO the_AT Frankfurt_NP1 School_NN1 could_VM also_RR be_VBI regarded_VVN as_II a_AT1 reassessment_NN1 of_IO Hegelianism_NN1 and_CC the_AT metaphysics_NN1 of_IO dialectical_JJ thought_NN1 ._. 
However_RR ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ too_RG simplistic_JJ a_AT1 reaction_NN1 to_TO suggest_VVI that_DD1 French_JJ poststructuralism_NN1 can_VM therefore_RR be_VBI invalidated_VVN by_II judging_VVG it_PPH1 against_II the_AT claims_NN2 of_IO a_AT1 comparable_JJ endeavour_NN1 in_II Germany_NP1 ,_, a_AT1 procedure_NN1 which_DDQ can_VM only_RR operate_VVI by_II turning_VVG the_AT former_DA into_II a_AT1 failed_JJ version_NN1 of_IO the_AT latter_DA ,_, which_DDQ obviously_RR leaves_VVZ open_JJ the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO exactly_RR the_AT reverse_JJ argument_NN1 being_VBG made_VVN ._. 
Though_CS the_AT two_MC may_VM have_VHI isolated_VVN similar_JJ problems_NN2 ,_, the_AT political_JJ and_CC intellectual_JJ context_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE work_NN1 was_VBDZ by_RR31 no_RR32 means_RR33 the_AT same_DA ._. 
The_AT key_JJ Frankfurt_NP1 School_NN1 text_NN1 in_II this_DD1 regard_NN1 is_VBZ obviously_RR Horkheimer_NP1 and_CC Adorno_NP1 's_GE Dialectic_NN1 of_IO Enlightenment_NN1 of_IO 1944_MC ._. 
The_AT date_NN1 ,_, and_CC the_AT exiled_JJ place_NN1 of_IO composition_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE authors_NN2 ,_, suggests_VVZ tellingly_RR that_CST the_AT situation_NN1 with_IW which_DDQ it_PPH1 attempts_VVZ to_TO deal_VVI is_VBZ the_AT phenomenon_NN1 of_IO fascism_NN1 which_DDQ seemed_VVD to_TO have_VHI stopped_VVN in_II its_APPGE tracks_NN2 the_AT long_JJ march_NN1 of_IO the_AT progress_NN1 of_IO reason_NN1 ,_, and_CC its_APPGE liberating_JJ enlightenment_NN1 ideals_NN2 ,_, of_IO which_DDQ Marxism_NN1 was_VBDZ the_AT fullest_JJT political_JJ development_NN1 ._. 
Horkheimer_NP1 and_CC Adorno_NP1 therefore_RR pose_VV0 the_AT question_NN1 :_: how_RRQ has_VHZ the_AT dialectic_NN1 deviated_VVN into_II fascism_NN1 ?_? 
Why_RRQ has_VHZ History_NN1 gone_VVN wrong_JJ ?_? 
Their_APPGE answer_NN1 ,_, briefly_RR ,_, was_VBDZ that_DD1 reason_NN1 had_VHD always_RR contained_VVN a_AT1 measure_NN1 of_IO irrationality_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ ,_, despite_II its_APPGE best_JJT intentions_NN2 ,_, had_VHD led_VVN to_II its_APPGE involvement_NN1 with_IW tyranny_NN1 and_CC domination_NN1 :_: '_GE Enlightenment_NN1 is_VBZ totalitarian_JJ '_GE ._. 
The_AT very_JJ powers_NN2 of_IO rationality_NN1 which_DDQ enabled_VVD modern_JJ man_NN1 to_TO free_VVI himself_PPX1 from_II nature_NN1 and_CC control_VVI it_PPH1 had_VHD also_RR become_VV0 an_AT1 instrumental_JJ device_NN1 to_TO dominate_VVI him_PPHO1 ._. 
If_CS nature_NN1 had_VHD been_VBN modelled_VVN by_II man_NN1 into_II productive_JJ commodities_NN2 ,_, man_NN1 's_GE own_DA subjectivity_NN1 had_VHD also_RR become_VV0 reified_VVN into_II a_AT1 self-identical_JJ instrument_NN1 ;_; man_NN1 had_VHD become_VVN an_AT1 empty_JJ and_CC passive_JJ consumer_NN1 ._. 
The_AT project_NN1 ,_, therefore_RR ,_, was_VBDZ to_TO return_VVI to_II the_AT enlightenment_NN1 in_II the_AT wake_NN1 of_IO fascism_NN1 ,_, to_II excise_NN1 the_AT forms_NN2 of_IO instrumental_JJ rationality_NN1 that_CST had_VHD produced_VVN this_DD1 self-defeating_NN1 and_CC ,_, ironically_RR ,_, irrational_JJ dialectical_JJ structure_NN1 of_IO domination_NN1 ,_, and_CC to_TO redefine_VVI reason_NN1 and_CC the_AT forms_NN2 of_IO identity_NN1 thinking_VVG that_CST had_VHD defined_VVN the_AT individual_NN1 simply_RR as_II an_AT1 indistinguishable_JJ element_NN1 in_II the_AT collective_NN1 ._. 
In_II this_DD1 way_NN1 the_AT autonomy_NN1 and_CC spontaneity_NN1 of_IO the_AT individual_JJ subject_NN1 that_CST had_VHD been_VBN the_AT original_JJ goal_NN1 of_IO enlightenment_NN1 might_VM be_VBI retrieved_VVN ._. 
If_CS for_IF the_AT Frankfurt_NP1 School_NN1 the_AT problem_NN1 to_TO be_VBI dealt_VVN with_IW was_VBDZ the_AT relation_NN1 of_IO the_AT phenomena_NN2 of_IO fascism_NN1 ,_, and_CC particularly_RR Auschwitz_NP1 ,_, to_II the_AT ideals_NN2 of_IO the_AT enlightenment_NN1 and_CC the_AT progress_NN1 of_IO reason_NN1 ,_, for_IF the_AT French_JJ poststructuralists_NN2 the_AT historical_JJ perspective_NN1 was_VBDZ similarly_RR long_JJ ._. 
But_CCB it_PPH1 comprised_VVD ,_, rather_RR ,_, a_AT1 history_NN1 of_IO the_AT West_ND1 in_II which_DDQ fascism_NN1 was_VBDZ itself_PPX1 merely_RR a_AT1 symptom_NN1 ,_, and_CC included_VVD not_XX only_RR the_AT history_NN1 of_IO European_JJ imperialism_NN1 but_CCB also_RR the_AT defeats_NN2 of_IO the_AT European_JJ colonial_JJ powers_NN2 by_II Japan_NP1 in_II World_NN1 War_NN1 II_MC ,_, the_AT subsequent_JJ French_NN1 (_( and_CC American_JJ )_) defeat_VV0 in_II South-East_ND1 Asia_NP1 ,_, the_AT war_NN1 in_II Algeria_NP1 ,_, as_II31 well_II32 as_II33 the_AT many_DA2 other_JJ colonial_JJ wars_NN2 of_IO national_JJ liberation_NN1 ._. 
From_II this_DD1 point_NN1 of_IO view_NN1 the_AT French_NN1 have_VH0 never_RR regarded_VVN fascism_NN1 as_II an_AT1 aberration_NN1 ,_, concurring_VVG rather_RR with_IW Csaire_NP1 and_CC Fanon_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 can_VM be_VBI explained_VVN quite_RG simply_RR as_CSA European_JJ colonialism_NN1 brought_VVD home_RL to_II Europe_NP1 by_II a_AT1 country_NN1 that_CST had_VHD been_VBN deprived_VVN of_IO its_APPGE overseas_JJ empire_NN1 after_II World_NN1 War_NN1 I._NP1 French_JJ poststructuralism_NN1 ,_, therefore_RR ,_, involves_VVZ a_AT1 critique_NN1 of_IO reason_NN1 as_II a_AT1 system_NN1 of_IO domination_NN1 comparable_JJ to_II that_DD1 of_IO the_AT Frankfurt_NP1 School_NN1 ,_, but_CCB rather_II21 than_II22 setting_VVG up_RP the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 purged_JJ reason_NN1 operating_NN1 in_II an_AT1 unblocked_JJ ,_, ideal_JJ speech_NN1 situation_NN1 as_II a_AT1 defence_NN1 against_II tyranny_NN1 and_CC coercion_NN1 in_II the_AT manner_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 Habermas_NN2 ,_, it_PPH1 reanalyses_VVZ the_AT operations_NN2 of_IO reason_NN1 as_II such_DA ._. 
Here_RL the_AT focus_NN1 is_VBZ placed_VVN not_XX so_RG much_DA1 upon_II the_AT continued_JJ presence_NN1 of_IO irrationality_NN1 ,_, for_IF irrationality_NN1 after_II all_DB is_VBZ simply_RR reason_NN1 's_GE own_DA excluded_JJ but_CCB necessary_JJ negative_JJ other_JJ ,_, but_CCB rather_RR on_II the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO other_JJ logics_NN2 being_VBG imbricated_VVN within_II reason_NN1 which_DDQ might_VM serve_VVI to_TO undo_VVI its_APPGE own_DA tendency_NN1 to_II domination_NN1 ._. 
Here_RL we_PPIS2 have_VH0 a_AT1 major_JJ difference_NN1 from_II the_AT historical_JJ pessimism_NN1 of_IO Adorno_NP1 's_GE negative_JJ dialectics_NN2 which_DDQ in_II certain_JJ respects_NN2 poststructuralism_NN1 might_VM appear_VVI to_TO resemble_VVI ._. 
Another_DD1 such_DA project_NN1 was_VBDZ initiated_VVN by_II Adorno_NP1 's_GE contemporary_JJ Jean-Paul_NP1 Sartre_NP1 ,_, whose_DDQGE attempt_NN1 to_TO define_VVI a_AT1 new_JJ form_NN1 of_IO Hegelian_JJ Marxism_NN1 via_II a_AT1 reworked_JJ philosophy_NN1 of_IO consciousness_NN1 in_II many_DA2 ways_NN2 more_RGR closely_RR resembled_VVD that_DD1 of_IO the_AT Frankfurt_NP1 School_NN1 ._. 
In_II both_DB2 cases_NN2 revisionary_JJ work_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 kind_NN1 was_VBDZ embodied_VVN in_II a_AT1 historical_JJ and_CC political_JJ analysis_NN1 of_IO the_AT relation_NN1 of_IO individual_JJ consciousness_NN1 to_II society_NN1 ,_, from_II within_II the_AT aegis_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 Hegelian_JJ Marxism_NN1 in_II some_DD respects_NN2 still_RR impossibly_RR bound_VVN to_II its_APPGE own_DA enlightenment_NN1 heritage_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 meant_VVD that_CST Adorno_NP1 in_RR21 particular_RR22 tended_VVD to_TO project_VVI science_NN1 as_CSA something_PN1 exterior_JJ and_CC exclusively_RR instrumental_JJ ;_; he_PPHS1 reacted_VVD against_II it_PPH1 ,_, as_II31 well_II32 as_II33 '_GE objective_NN1 '_GE reason_NN1 generally_RR ,_, by_II trying_VVG to_TO retrieve_VVI the_AT individual_JJ subject_NN1 as_II the_AT means_NN to_II salvation_NN1 ._. 
In_II France_NP1 ,_, however_RR ,_, there_RL also_RR existed_VVD a_AT1 very_RG different_JJ tradition_NN1 ,_, that_DD1 of_IO the_AT history_NN1 of_IO the_AT sciences_NN2 ,_, a_AT1 tradition_NN1 in_II which_DDQ Foucault_NP1 has_VHZ placed_VVN himself_PPX1 ._. 
Having_VHG been_VBN overshadowed_VVN since_CS the_AT war_NN1 by_II Sartrean_JJ Marxism_NN1 ,_, in_II the_AT crises_NN2 of_IO the_AT 1960s_MC2 it_PPH1 emerged_VVD as_II the_AT more_RGR influential_JJ of_IO the_AT two_MC ._. 
Foucault_NN1 traces_VVZ its_APPGE history_NN1 back_RP to_II Husserl_NP1 's_GE Cartesian_JJ Meditations_NN2 (_( 1929_MC )_) and_CC the_AT Crisis_NN1 of_IO the_AT European_JJ Sciences_NN2 (_( 1936_MC )_) in_II which_DDQ Husserl_NP1 '_GE posed_VVD the_AT question_NN1 of_IO the_AT relations_NN2 between_II the_AT '_GE Western_NP1 '_GE project_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 universal_JJ deployment_NN1 of_IO reason_NN1 ,_, &lsqb;_( and_CC &rsqb;_) the_AT positivity_NN1 of_IO the_AT sciences_NN2 and_CC the_AT radicality_NN1 of_IO philosophy'_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 enabled_VVD the_AT establishment_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 critical_JJ position_NN1 in_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 science_NN1 which_DDQ for_IF Adorno_NP1 remained_VVD so_RG elusive_JJ ._. 
In_II larger_JJR terms_NN2 ,_, however_RR ,_, the_AT questions_NN2 posed_VVN in_II the_AT French_JJ tradition_NN1 were_VBDR comparable_JJ to_II those_DD2 of_IO the_AT Frankfurt_NP1 School_NN1 ,_, particularly_RR the_AT interrogation_NN1 of_IO rationality_NN1 in_II its_APPGE claims_NN2 to_II universality_NN1 ._. 
As_CSA Foucault_NP1 puts_VVZ it_PPH1 :_: In_II the_AT history_NN1 of_IO the_AT sciences_NN2 in_II France_NP1 ,_, as_CSA in_II German_JJ critical_JJ theory_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ a_AT1 matter_NN1 at_II bottom_NN1 of_IO examining_VVG a_AT1 reason_NN1 ,_, the_AT autonomy_NN1 of_IO whose_DDQGE structures_NN2 carries_VVZ with_IW it_PPH1 a_AT1 history_NN1 of_IO dogmatism_NN1 and_CC despotism_NN1 a_AT1 reason_NN1 ,_, consequently_RR ,_, which_DDQ can_VM only_RR have_VHI an_AT1 effect_NN1 of_IO emancipation_NN1 on_II condition_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 manages_VVZ to_TO liberate_VVI itself_PPX1 from_II itself._NNU (_( 54_MC )_) The_AT final_JJ emancipatory_JJ gesture_NN1 of_IO enlightenment_NN1 thought_NN1 would_VM thus_RR be_VBI its_APPGE own_DA liberation_NN1 from_II itself_PPX1 ,_, so_CS21 that_CS22 it_PPH1 is_VBZ no_RR21 longer_RR22 recognizable_JJ as_CSA reason_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB what_DDQ was_VBDZ it_PPH1 that_CST brought_VVD about_RP the_AT return_NN1 of_IO the_AT question_NN1 of_IO the_AT enlightenment_NN1 to_II contemporary_JJ philosophical_JJ enquiry_NN1 ?_? 
Foucault_NN1 identifies_VVZ three_MC reasons_NN2 :_: first_MD of_IO all_DB the_AT ever-increasing_JJ importance_NN1 of_IO technology_NN1 ,_, secondly_RR the_AT place_NN1 of_IO rationalism_NN1 in_II the_AT optimism_NN1 attached_VVN to_II the_AT notion_NN1 of_IO '_GE revolution_NN1 '_GE as_RG well_RR as_CSA in_II the_AT despotism_NN1 that_CST so_RG often_RR followed_VVD its_APPGE realization_NN1 and_CC thirdly_RR :_: the_AT movement_NN1 which_DDQ ,_, at_II the_AT close_NN1 of_IO the_AT colonial_JJ era_NN1 ,_, led_VVD it_PPH1 to_TO be_VBI asked_VVN of_IO the_AT West_ND1 what_DDQ entitles_VVZ its_APPGE culture_NN1 ,_, its_APPGE science_NN1 ,_, its_APPGE social_JJ organization_NN1 ,_, and_CC finally_RR its_APPGE rationality_NN1 itself_PPX1 ,_, to_TO be_VBI able_JK to_TO claim_VVI universal_JJ validity_NN1 :_: was_VBDZ this_DD1 not_XX a_AT1 mirage_NN1 associated_VVN with_IW economic_JJ domination_NN1 and_CC political_JJ hegemony_NN1 ?_? 
Two_MC centuries_NNT2 later_RRR ,_, the_AT Enlightenment_NN1 returns_VVZ :_: but_CCB not_XX at_II all_DB as_II a_AT1 way_NN1 for_IF the_AT West_ND1 to_TO take_VVI cognizance_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE present_JJ possibilities_NN2 and_CC of_IO the_AT liberties_NN2 to_II which_DDQ it_PPH1 can_VM have_VHI access_NN1 ,_, but_CCB as_II a_AT1 way_NN1 of_IO interrogating_VVG it_PPH1 on_II its_APPGE limits_NN2 and_CC on_II the_AT powers_NN2 which_DDQ it_PPH1 has_VHZ abused_VVN ._. 
Reason_NN1 as_CSA despotic_JJ enlightenment._NNU (_( 54_MC )_) Foucault_NP1 's_GE account_NN1 is_VBZ particularly_RR useful_JJ insofar_CS21 as_CS22 it_PPH1 gives_VVZ a_AT1 good_JJ indication_NN1 of_IO the_AT characteristic_JJ French_NN1 ,_, as_II31 opposed_II32 to_II33 German_NN1 ,_, emphasis_NN1 on_II the_AT relation_NN1 of_IO Marxism_NN1 to_II enlightenment_NN1 rationality_NN1 and_CC the_AT questioning_NN1 of_IO enlightenment_NN1 claims_VVZ to_II the_AT universality_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE values_NN2 ._. 
The_AT first_MD element_NN1 ,_, the_AT role_NN1 of_IO science_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ common_JJ to_II both_DB2 ,_, though_CS they_PPHS2 approach_VV0 the_AT question_NN1 from_II opposite_JJ perspectives_NN2 ._. 
The_AT second_NNT1 ,_, the_AT role_NN1 of_IO enlightenment_NN1 thinking_VVG in_II the_AT subsequent_JJ history_NN1 of_IO European_JJ despotism_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ the_AT particular_JJ focus_NN1 of_IO interest_NN1 for_IF the_AT German_JJ critical_JJ theorists_NN2 ,_, most_RGT memorably_RR and_CC most_RGT forcibly_RR articulated_VVN in_II Benjamin_NP1 's_GE '_GE Theses_NN2 on_II the_AT Philosophy_NN1 of_IO History_NN1 '_GE ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ the_AT third_MD element_NN1 ,_, however_RR ,_, which_DDQ represents_VVZ the_AT special_JJ interest_NN1 of_IO the_AT French_NN1 ,_, whether_CSW of_IO the_AT Sartrean_NN1 or_CC Foucauldian_JJ tradition_NN1 :_: the_AT relation_NN1 of_IO the_AT enlightenment_NN1 ,_, its_APPGE grand_JJ projects_NN2 and_CC universal_JJ truth-claims_NN2 ,_, to_II the_AT history_NN1 of_IO European_JJ colonialism_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 need_VM not_XX necessarily_RR involve_VVI a_AT1 direct_JJ analysis_NN1 of_IO the_AT effects_NN2 of_IO colonialism_NN1 as_II such_DA ,_, but_CCB can_VM also_RR consist_VVI of_IO a_AT1 relentless_JJ anatomization_NN1 of_IO the_AT collusive_JJ forms_NN2 of_IO European_JJ knowledge_NN1 ._. 
For_IF Foucault_NP1 this_DD1 has_VHZ comprised_VVN a_AT1 vigorous_JJ critique_NN1 of_IO historicism_NN1 ,_, including_II Marxist_JJ historicism_NN1 ,_, and_CC its_APPGE relation_NN1 to_II the_AT operations_NN2 of_IO knowledge_NN1 and_CC power_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ from_II this_DD1 perspective_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 becomes_VVZ possible_JJ to_TO understand_VVI the_AT basis_NN1 of_IO the_AT distrust_NN1 of_IO totalizing_VVG systems_NN2 of_IO knowledge_NN1 which_DDQ depend_VV0 upon_II theory_NN1 and_CC concepts_NN2 ,_, so_RG characteristic_JJ of_IO Foucault_NP1 or_CC Lyotard_NP1 ,_, both_DB2 of_IO whom_PNQO have_VH0 been_VBN predominantly_RR concerned_JJ with_IW the_AT attempt_NN1 to_TO isolate_VVI and_CC foreground_NN1 singularity_NN1 as_II31 opposed_II32 to_II33 universality_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 quest_NN1 for_IF the_AT singular_NN1 ,_, the_AT contingent_JJ event_NN1 which_DDQ by_II definition_NN1 refuses_VVZ all_DB conceptualization_NN1 ,_, can_VM clearly_RR be_VBI related_VVN to_II the_AT project_NN1 of_IO constructing_VVG a_AT1 form_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 that_CST respects_VVZ the_AT other_JJ without_IW absorbing_VVG it_PPH1 into_II the_AT same_DA ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ in_II the_AT work_NN1 of_IO Edward_NP1 Said_NP1 that_CST we_PPIS2 can_VM find_VVI the_AT problematic_JJ of_IO historicist_NN1 forms_NN2 of_IO knowledge_NN1 linked_VVN most_RGT forcibly_RR to_II the_AT question_NN1 of_IO European_JJ imperialism_NN1 ._. 
He_PPHS1 writes_VVZ :_: So_RG far_RR as_CSA Orientalism_NN1 in_RR21 particular_RR22 and_CC European_JJ knowledge_NN1 of_IO other_JJ societies_NN2 in_RR21 general_RR22 have_VH0 been_VBN concerned_JJ ,_, historicism_NN1 meant_VVD that_CST one_MC1 human_JJ history_NN1 uniting_JJ humanity_NN1 either_RR culminated_VVN in_RP or_CC was_VBDZ observed_VVN from_II the_AT vantage_NN1 point_NN1 of_IO Europe_NP1 ,_, or_CC the_AT West_ND1 ..._... 
What_DDQ ..._... has_VHZ never_RR taken_VVN place_NN1 is_VBZ an_AT1 epistemological_JJ critique_NN1 at_II the_AT most_RGT fundamental_JJ level_NN1 of_IO the_AT connection_NN1 between_II the_AT development_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 historicism_NN1 which_DDQ has_VHZ expanded_VVN and_CC developed_VVN enough_RR to_TO include_VVI antithetical_JJ attitudes_NN2 such_II21 as_II22 ideologies_NN2 of_IO Western_JJ imperialism_NN1 and_CC critiques_NN2 of_IO imperialism_NN1 on_II the_AT one_MC1 hand_NN1 ,_, and_CC on_II the_AT other_JJ ,_, the_AT actual_JJ practice_NN1 of_IO imperialism_NN1 by_II which_DDQ the_AT accumulation_NN1 of_IO territories_NN2 and_CC population_NN1 ,_, the_AT control_NN1 of_IO economies_NN2 ,_, and_CC the_AT incorporation_NN1 and_CC homogenisation_NN1 of_IO histories_NN2 are_VBR maintained_VVN ._. 
This_DD1 was_VBDZ the_AT difficult_JJ project_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE own_DA book_NN1 ,_, Orientalism_NN1 (_( 1978_MC )_) ,_, which_DDQ we_PPIS2 shall_VM later_RRR be_VBI examining_VVG in_II detail_NN1 ._. 
For_IF the_AT moment_NN1 let_VV0 us_PPIO2 focus_VVI on_II Said_NP1 's_GE subsequent_JJ point_NN1 that_CST if_CS Orientalism_NN1 and_CC anthropology_NN1 derive_VV0 from_II historicism_NN1 ,_, this_DD1 is_VBZ by_RR31 no_RR32 means_RR33 a_AT1 thing_NN1 of_IO the_AT past_NN1 :_: of_IO more_RGR recent_JJ sciences_NN2 ,_, Said_NP1 singles_VVZ out_RP in_RR21 particular_RR22 that_DD1 of_IO world_NN1 history_NN1 as_CSA practised_VVN by_II Braudel_NP1 ,_, Wallerstein_NP1 ,_, Anderson_NP1 and_CC Wolf_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ he_PPHS1 contends_VVZ is_VBZ still_RR derived_VVN from_II the_AT enterprise_NN1 of_IO Orientalism_NN1 and_CC its_APPGE colluding_JJ companion_NN1 anthropology_NN1 ,_, and_CC which_DDQ has_VHZ refused_VVN to_TO encounter_VVI and_CC to_TO interrogate_VVI its_APPGE own_DA relationship_NN1 as_II a_AT1 discipline_NN1 to_II European_JJ imperialism_NN1 ._. 
For_IF Said_NP1 ,_, the_AT problem_NN1 amounts_NN2 simply_RR to_II historicism_NN1 and_CC ,_, the_AT universalising_NN1 and_CC self-validating_NN1 that_CST has_VHZ been_VBN endemic_JJ to_TO it'_VVI :_: the_AT theories_NN2 of_IO accumulation_NN1 on_II a_AT1 world_NN1 scale_NN1 ,_, or_CC the_AT capitalist_JJ world_NN1 state_NN1 ,_, or_CC lineages_NN2 of_IO absolutism_NN1 depend_VV0 (_( a_ZZ1 )_) on_II the_AT same_DA displaced_JJ percipient_NN1 and_CC historicist_NN1 observer_NN1 who_PNQS had_VHD been_VBN an_AT1 Orientalist_NN1 or_CC colonial_JJ traveller_NN1 three_MC generations_NN2 ago_RA ;_; (_( b_ZZ1 )_) they_PPHS2 depend_VV0 also_RR on_II a_AT1 homogenising_NN1 and_CC incorporating_VVG world_NN1 historical_JJ scheme_NN1 that_CST assimilated_VVD non-synchronous_JJ developments_NN2 ,_, histories_NN2 ,_, cultures_NN2 ,_, and_CC peoples_NN2 to_II it_PPH1 ;_; and_CC (_( c_ZZ1 )_) they_PPHS2 block_VV0 and_CC keep_VV0 down_RP latent_JJ epistemological_JJ critiques_NN2 of_IO the_AT institutional_JJ ,_, cultural_JJ and_CC disciplinary_JJ instruments_NN2 linking_VVG the_AT incorporative_JJ practice_NN1 of_IO world_NN1 history_NN1 with_IW partial_JJ knowledges_NN2 like_II Orientalism_NN1 on_II the_AT one_MC1 hand_NN1 ,_, and_CC on_II the_AT other_JJ ,_, with_IW continued_JJ '_GE Western_NP1 '_GE hegemony_NN1 of_IO the_AT non-European_NN1 ,_, peripheral_JJ world._NNU (_( 22_MC )_) A_ZZ1 new_JJ type_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 ,_, Said_NP1 contends_VVZ ,_, must_VM be_VBI produced_VVN that_CST can_VM analyse_VVI plural_JJ objects_NN2 as_CSA such_DA rather_II21 than_II22 offering_VVG forms_NN2 of_IO integrated_JJ understanding_NN1 that_CST simply_RR comprehend_VV0 them_PPHO2 within_II totalizing_VVG schemas_NN2 ._. 
Already_RR across_II a_AT1 wide_JJ range_NN1 of_IO different_JJ activities_NN2 he_PPHS1 points_VVZ to_II advances_NN2 in_II the_AT process_NN1 of_IO '_GE breaking_VVG up_RP ,_, dissolving_VVG and_CC methodologically_RR as_II31 well_II32 as_II33 critically_RR reconceiving_VVG the_AT unitary_JJ field_NN1 ruled_VVD hitherto_RT by_II Orientalism_NN1 ,_, historicism_NN1 ,_, and_CC what_DDQ could_VM be_VBI called_VVN essentialist_NN1 universalism_NN1 '_GE ._. 
In_II this_DD1 last_MD phrase_NN1 ,_, Said_VVD thus_RR links_VVZ his_APPGE critique_NN1 of_IO Orientalism_NN1 to_II other_JJ critiques_NN2 ,_, such_II21 as_II22 those_DD2 of_IO racism_NN1 or_CC of_IO patriarchy_NN1 ._. 
The_AT more_RGR difficult_JJ question_NN1 remains_VVZ of_IO what_DDQ form_VV0 this_DD1 new_JJ kind_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 can_VM take_VVI ._. 
Here_RL we_PPIS2 return_VV0 to_II the_AT theoretical_JJ problem_NN1 of_IO how_RRQ the_AT other_NN1 can_VM be_VBI articulated_VVN as_II such_DA ._. 
How_RRQ can_VM we_PPIS2 represent_VVI other_JJ cultures_NN2 ?_? asks_VVZ Said_NP1 ,_, as_CSA Lvi-Strauss_NP1 had_VHD done_VDN before_II him_PPHO1 ._. 
His_APPGE own_DA dismissal_NN1 of_IO deconstruction_NN1 as_II a_AT1 merely_RR textual_JJ practice_NN1 means_VVZ that_CST he_PPHS1 is_VBZ himself_PPX1 at_II a_AT1 loss_NN1 when_RRQ faced_VVN with_IW the_AT complex_JJ conceptual_JJ dialectics_NN2 of_IO the_AT same_DA and_CC the_AT other_JJ ._. 
As_CSA will_VM be_VBI demonstrated_VVN with_II31 respect_II32 to_II33 Orientalism_NN1 itself_PPX1 ,_, Said_NP1 can_VM not_XX get_VVI out_II21 of_II22 the_AT Hegelian_JJ problematic_JJ that_CST he_PPHS1 articulates_VVZ ,_, and_CC indeed_RR tends_VVZ himself_PPX1 to_TO repeat_VVI the_AT very_JJ processes_NN2 that_CST he_PPHS1 criticizes_VVZ ._. 
His_APPGE advocacy_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 analytic_JJ pluralism_NN1 in_II itself_PPX1 does_VDZ not_XX solve_VVI ,_, or_CC even_RR address_VVI ,_, the_AT conceptual_JJ problems_NN2 ._. 
Nevertheless_RR ,_, Said_NP1 's_GE comments_NN2 suggest_VV0 the_AT wider_JJR significance_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE project_NN1 ._. 
The_AT demise_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 orthodox_JJ Marxism_NN1 may_VM have_VHI left_VVN theory_NN1 with_IW a_AT1 sense_NN1 that_CST everything_PN1 is_VBZ now_RT in_II flux_NN1 ,_, that_CST the_AT old_JJ verities_NN2 have_VH0 gone_VVN ,_, but_CCB it_PPH1 has_VHZ also_RR involved_VVN the_AT important_JJ realization_NN1 ,_, articulated_VVN so_RG forcibly_RR by_II writers_NN2 such_II21 as_II22 Foucault_NP1 or_CC Said_NP1 ,_, of_IO the_AT deep_JJ articulation_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 with_IW power_NN1 ._. 
The_AT politics_NN1 of_IO poststructuralism_NN1 forces_VVZ the_AT recognition_NN1 that_CST all_DB knowledge_NN1 may_VM be_VBI variously_RR contaminated_VVN ,_, implicated_VVD in_II its_APPGE very_RG formal_JJ or_CC '_GE objective_NN1 ,_, structures_NN2 ._. 
This_DD1 means_VVZ that_CST in_RR21 particular_RR22 colonial_JJ discourse_NN1 analysis_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX merely_RR a_AT1 marginal_JJ adjunct_NN1 to_II more_RGR mainstream_JJ studies_NN2 ,_, a_AT1 specialized_JJ activity_NN1 only_RR for_IF minorities_NN2 or_CC for_IF historians_NN2 of_IO imperialism_NN1 and_CC colonialism_NN1 ,_, but_CCB itself_PPX1 forms_VVZ the_AT point_NN1 of_IO questioning_NN1 of_IO Western_JJ knowledge_NN1 's_GE categories_NN2 and_CC assumptions_NN2 ._. 
In_II the_AT same_DA way_NN1 ,_, Fanon_NP1 suggests_VVZ that_CST at_II the_AT political_JJ level_NN1 the_AT so-called_JJ '_GE Third_MD World_NN1 '_GE constitutes_VVZ the_AT disruptive_JJ term_NN1 for_IF the_AT European_JJ political_JJ dialectic_NN1 of_IO capitalism_NN1 and_CC socialism_NN1 ._. 
Everyone_PN1 feels_VVZ the_AT need_NN1 nowadays_RT to_TO qualify_VVI the_AT term_NN1 '_GE Third_MD World_NN1 '_GE ,_, stating_VVG quite_RG correctly_RR that_CST it_PPH1 should_VM not_XX be_VBI taken_VVN to_TO imply_VVI a_AT1 homogeneous_JJ entity_NN1 ._. 
The_AT inadequateness_NN1 of_IO the_AT term_NN1 ,_, however_RR ,_, insofar_CS21 as_CS22 it_PPH1 offers_VVZ a_AT1 univocal_JJ description_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 extremely_RR heterogeneous_JJ section_NN1 of_IO the_AT world_NN1 ,_, also_RR means_VVZ that_CST a_AT1 suitable_JJ alternative_JJ general_JJ category_NN1 can_VM not_XX by_II definition_NN1 be_VBI produced_VVN ._. 
In_II this_DD1 situation_NN1 ,_, abject_JJ apologies_NN2 in_II some_DD respects_NN2 remain_VV0 complicit_NN1 with_IW the_AT patronizing_JJ attitudes_NN2 from_II which_DDQ they_PPHS2 attempt_VV0 to_TO disassociate_VVI themselves_PPX2 ._. 
For_IF the_AT '_GE Third_MD World_NN1 '_GE was_VBDZ invented_VVN in_II the_AT context_NN1 of_IO the_AT 1955_MC Bandung_JJ Conference_NN1 ,_, on_II the_AT model_NN1 of_IO the_AT French_JJ Revolution_NN1 's_VBZ '_GE Third_MD Estate_NN1 '_GE ,_, and_CC incorporating_VVG equally_RR revolutionary_JJ ideals_NN2 of_IO providing_VVG a_AT1 radical_JJ alternative_NN1 to_II the_AT hegemonic_JJ capitalist-socialist_JJ power_NN1 blocks_NN2 of_IO the_AT post-war_JJ period_NN1 ._. 
The_AT Third_MD World_NN1 as_II a_AT1 term_NN1 needs_VVZ to_TO retrieve_VVI this_DD1 lost_VVD positive_JJ sense_NN1 even_CS21 if_CS22 today_RT the_AT political_JJ order_NN1 has_VHZ changed_VVN so_CS21 that_CS22 to_II some_DD extent_NN1 the_AT various_JJ forms_NN2 of_IO Islamic_JJ fundamentalism_NN1 have_VH0 taken_VVN over_II the_AT role_NN1 of_IO providing_VVG a_AT1 direct_JJ alternative_NN1 to_II First_MD and_CC Second_MD World_NN1 ideologies_NN2 ._. 
'_GE Third_MD World_NN1 '_GE will_NN1 ,_, therefore_RR ,_, be_VBI used_VVN in_II this_DD1 book_NN1 without_IW (_( further_RRR )_) apology_NN1 ,_, or_CC scare_VV0 quotes_NN2 ,_, as_CSA a_AT1 positive_JJ term_NN1 of_IO radical_JJ critique_NN1 even_CS21 if_CS22 it_PPH1 also_RR necessarily_RR signals_VVZ its_APPGE negative_JJ sense_NN1 of_IO economic_JJ dependency_NN1 and_CC exploitation_NN1 ._. 
III_MC THE_AT PHILOSOPHICAL_JJ ALLERGY_NN1 Although_CS Said_NP1 rejects_VVZ them_PPHO2 ,_, and_CC Foucault_VV0 characteristically_RR does_VDZ not_XX mention_VVI them_PPHO2 ,_, the_AT most_RGT effective_JJ ploys_NN2 that_CST have_VH0 recently_RR been_VBN played_VVN in_II this_DD1 project_NN1 of_IO articulating_VVG another_DD1 form_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 ,_, of_IO redefining_VVG the_AT basis_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 as_II such_DA ,_, derive_VV0 from_II a_AT1 different_JJ although_CS related_JJ body_NN1 of_IO work_NN1 to_II that_DD1 which_DDQ Foucault_NP1 describes_VVZ namely_REX the_AT phenomenological_JJ tradition_NN1 of_IO Heidegger_NP1 ,_, Levinas_NP2 ,_, and_CC Derrida_NP1 ,_, which_DDQ ,_, seemingly_RR like_II all_DB twentieth-century_JJ European_JJ philosophy_NN1 ,_, also_RR traces_VVZ its_APPGE apparent_JJ origins_NN2 back_RP to_II Husserl_NP1 ._. 
As_CSA we_PPIS2 have_VH0 seen_VVN ,_, the_AT fundamental_JJ problem_NN1 concerns_VVZ the_AT way_NN1 in_II which_DDQ knowledge_NN1 and_CC therefore_RR theory_NN1 ,_, or_CC history_NN1 is_VBZ constituted_VVN through_II the_AT comprehension_NN1 and_CC incorporation_NN1 of_IO the_AT other_JJ ._. 
This_DD1 has_VHZ led_VVN to_II a_AT1 series_NN of_IO attempts_NN2 to_TO reinscribe_VVI a_AT1 place_NN1 for_IF ,_, and_CC a_AT1 relation_NN1 with_IW ,_, the_AT other_JJ as_CSA other_JJ ,_, outside_II the_AT sphere_NN1 of_IO mastery_NN1 and_CC therefore_RR ,_, logically_RR speaking_VVG ,_, both_RR infinite_JJ and_CC beyond_II the_AT scope_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 ._. 
Emmanuel_NP1 Levinas_NP2 ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, whose_DDQGE career_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN long_RR enough_RR to_TO have_VHI introduced_VVN Husserl_NN1 to_II Sartre_NP1 in_II the_AT thirties_MC2 and_CC to_TO have_VHI been_VBN able_JK to_TO reply_VVI to_II Derrida_NP1 in_II the_AT seventies_MC2 ,_, proposes_VVZ a_AT1 rather_RG different_JJ critique_NN1 of_IO such_DA models_NN2 of_IO knowledge_NN1 to_II those_DD2 which_DDQ we_PPIS2 have_VH0 encountered_VVN so_RG far_RR ._. 
According_II21 to_II22 Levinas_NP2 ,_, Western_JJ philosophy_NN1 coincides_VVZ with_IW the_AT disclosure_NN1 of_IO the_AT other_JJ where_CS the_AT other_JJ ,_, in_II manifesting_VVG itself_PPX1 as_II a_AT1 being_NN1 ,_, loses_VVZ its_APPGE alterity_NN1 ._. 
From_II its_APPGE infancy_NN1 philosophy_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN struck_VVN with_IW a_AT1 horror_NN1 of_IO the_AT other_JJ that_CST remains_VVZ other_JJ with_IW an_AT1 insurmountable_JJ allergy_NN1 ..._... 
Hegel_NP1 's_GE philosophy_NN1 represents_VVZ the_AT logical_JJ outcome_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 underlying_JJ allergy_NN1 of_IO philosophy_NN1 ._. 
Levinas_NP1 objects_NN2 to_II the_AT implicit_JJ violence_NN1 in_II the_AT process_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 which_DDQ appropriates_VVZ and_CC sublates_VVZ the_AT essence_NN1 of_IO the_AT other_JJ into_II itself_PPX1 ._. 
But_CCB as_CSA we_PPIS2 can_VM see_VVI ,_, he_PPHS1 does_VDZ not_XX just_RR blame_VVI Hegel_NP1 here_RL ,_, for_IF according_II21 to_II22 Levinas_NP2 ontology_NN1 itself_PPX1 is_VBZ the_AT problem_NN1 ._. 
Concerned_JJ to_TO find_VVI a_AT1 way_NN1 to_TO allow_VVI the_AT other_JJ to_TO remain_VVI as_RG other_JJ ,_, Levinas_NP2 therefore_RR rejects_VVZ not_XX only_RR Hegel_NP1 but_CCB Husserl_NP1 ,_, Heidegger_NP1 and_CC Sartre_NP1 also_RR ,_, and_CC abjures_VVZ ontology_NN1 altogether_RR ._. 
Because_CS ontology_NN1 involves_VVZ an_AT1 ethico-political_JJ violence_NN1 towards_II the_AT other_JJ ,_, always_RR to_II some_DD degree_NN1 seen_VVN as_II a_AT1 threat_NN1 ,_, Levinas_NP2 proposes_VVZ ethics_NN in_II its_APPGE place_NN1 ,_, substituting_VVG a_AT1 respect_NN1 for_IF the_AT other_JJ for_IF a_AT1 grasping_JJ of_IO it_PPH1 ,_, and_CC a_AT1 theory_NN1 of_IO desire_NN1 not_XX as_CSA negation_NN1 and_CC assimilation_NN1 but_CCB as_CSA infinite_JJ separation_NN1 ._. 
In_II Totality_NN1 and_CC Infinity_NN1 (_( 1961_MC )_) ,_, a_AT1 book_NN1 self-consciously_RR written_VVN under_II the_AT shadow_NN1 of_IO two_MC '_GE world_NN1 '_GE wars_NN2 in_II which_DDQ Europe_NP1 ,_, at_II the_AT limit_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE attempt_NN1 to_TO devour_VVI the_AT world_NN1 ,_, turned_VVD in_RP on_II itself_PPX1 in_II two_MC violent_JJ acts_NN2 of_IO self-consummation_NN1 ,_, Levinas_NP2 questions_VVZ the_AT accepted_JJ relation_NN1 between_II morality_NN1 and_CC politics_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 must_VM always_RR ,_, he_PPHS1 suggests_VVZ ,_, be_VBI possible_JJ to_TO criticize_VVI politics_NN1 from_II the_AT point_NN1 of_IO view_NN1 of_IO the_AT ethical_JJ ._. 
As_CSA Althusser_NP1 was_VBDZ keen_JJ to_TO emphasize_VVI ,_, according_II21 to_II22 Marx_NP1 morality_NN1 works_VVZ simply_RR as_II a_AT1 form_NN1 of_IO ideological_JJ control_NN1 ,_, and_CC Levinas_NP2 concurs_VVZ that_CST '_" everyone_PN1 will_VM readily_RR agree_VVI that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ the_AT highest_JJT importance_NN1 to_TO know_VVI whether_CSW we_PPIS2 are_VBR not_XX duped_VVN by_II morality_NN1 '_GE (_( 21_MC )_) ._. 
But_CCB ,_, he_PPHS1 argues_VVZ ,_, the_AT placing_NN1 of_IO politics_NN1 '_GE the_AT art_NN1 of_IO foreseeing_VVG war_NN1 and_CC of_IO winning_VVG it_PPH1 by_II every_AT1 means_NN '_GE before_II morality_NN1 overlooks_VVZ the_AT extent_NN1 to_II which_DDQ war_NN1 constitutes_VVZ the_AT philosophical_JJ concept_NN1 of_IO being_NN1 itself_PPX1 ._. 
For_IF being_NN1 is_VBZ always_RR defined_VVN as_II the_AT appropriation_NN1 of_IO either_RR difference_NN1 into_II identity_NN1 ,_, or_CC of_IO identities_NN2 into_II a_AT1 greater_JJR order_NN1 ,_, be_VBI it_PPH1 absolute_JJ knowledge_NN1 ,_, History_NN1 ,_, or_CC the_AT state_NN1 ._. 
For_IF its_APPGE part_NN1 ,_, violence_NN1 involves_VVZ not_XX just_RR physical_JJ force_NN1 ,_, injuring_VVG or_CC annihilating_VVG persons_NN2 ,_, but_CCB also_RR interrupting_VVG their_APPGE continuity_NN1 ,_, making_VVG them_PPHO2 play_VVI roles_NN2 in_II which_DDQ they_PPHS2 no_RR21 longer_RR22 recognize_VV0 themselves_PPX2 ,_, making_VVG them_PPHO2 betray_VVI not_XX only_RR commitments_NN2 but_CCB their_APPGE own_DA substance_NN1 ..._... 
Not_XX only_RR modern_JJ war_NN1 but_CCB every_AT1 war_NN1 employs_VVZ arms_NN2 that_CST turn_VV0 against_II those_DD2 who_PNQS wield_VV0 them_PPHO2 ._. 
It_PPH1 establishes_VVZ an_AT1 order_NN1 from_II which_DDQ no_PN121 one_PN122 can_VM keep_VVI his_APPGE distance_NN1 ;_; nothing_PN1 henceforth_RT is_VBZ exterior._NNU (_( 21_MC )_) War_NN1 ,_, then_RT ,_, is_VBZ another_DD1 form_NN1 of_IO the_AT appropriation_NN1 of_IO the_AT other_JJ ,_, and_CC underpins_VVZ all_DB ontological_JJ thinking_NN1 with_IW its_APPGE violence_NN1 ._. 
Its_APPGE corollary_NN1 ,_, or_CC '_GE visage_NN1 '_GE ,_, is_VBZ the_AT concept_NN1 of_IO totality_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ ,_, as_CSA Levinas_NN2 observes_VVZ ,_, has_VHZ dominated_VVN Western_JJ philosophy_NN1 in_II its_APPGE long_JJ history_NN1 of_IO desire_NN1 for_IF Unity_NN1 and_CC the_AT One_PN1 ._. 
Through_II the_AT totality_NN1 ,_, itself_PPX1 a_AT1 kind_NN1 of_IO rational_JJ self_NN1 writ_VVN large_JJ ,_, the_AT individual_NN1 takes_VVZ on_RP meaning_VVG ;_; the_AT present_NN1 is_VBZ sacrificed_VVN to_II a_AT1 future_NN1 which_DDQ will_VM bring_VVI forth_RR an_AT1 ultimate_JJ ,_, objective_JJ meaning_NN1 when_CS the_AT totality_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 is_VBZ realized_VVN ._. 
The_AT objection_NN1 therefore_RR to_II totalization_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX founded_VVN on_II any_DD simple_JJ analogy_NN1 with_IW totalitarianism_NN1 though_CS neither_DD1 can_VM this_DD1 be_VBI excluded_VVN but_CCB rather_RR on_II the_AT implicit_JJ violence_NN1 of_IO ontology_NN1 itself_PPX1 ,_, in_II which_DDQ the_AT same_DA constitutes_VVZ itself_PPX1 through_II a_AT1 form_NN1 of_IO negativity_NN1 in_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 the_AT other_JJ ,_, producing_VVG all_DB knowledge_NN1 by_II appropriating_VVG and_CC sublating_VVG the_AT other_JJ within_II itself_PPX1 ._. 
As_CSA Levinas_NN2 puts_VVZ it_PPH1 ,_, '_GE the_AT idea_NN1 of_IO truth_NN1 as_II a_AT1 grasp_NN1 on_II things_NN2 must_VM necessarily_RR have_VHI a_AT1 non-metaphorical_JJ sense_NN1 somewhere_RL '_GE ._. 
In_II Western_JJ philosophy_NN1 ,_, when_CS knowledge_NN1 or_CC theory_NN1 comprehends_VVZ the_AT other_JJ ,_, then_RT the_AT alterity_NN1 of_IO the_AT latter_DA vanishes_VVZ as_CSA it_PPH1 becomes_VVZ part_NN1 of_IO the_AT same_DA ._. 
This_58 '_GE ontological_JJ imperialism_NN1 '_GE ,_, Levinas_NP2 argues_VVZ ,_, goes_VVZ back_RP at_RR21 least_RR22 to_II Socrates_NP1 but_CCB can_VM be_VBI found_VVN as_RG recently_RR as_CSA Heidegger_NP1 ._. 
In_II all_DB cases_NN2 the_AT other_NN1 is_VBZ neutralized_VVN as_II a_AT1 means_NN of_IO encompassing_VVG it_PPH1 :_: ontology_NN1 amounts_VVZ to_II a_AT1 philosophy_NN1 of_IO power_NN1 ,_, an_AT1 egotism_NN1 in_II which_DDQ the_AT relation_NN1 with_IW the_AT other_NN1 is_VBZ accomplished_VVN through_II its_APPGE assimilation_NN1 into_II the_AT self_NN1 ._. 
Its_APPGE political_JJ implications_NN2 are_VBR clear_JJ enough_RR :_: Heidegger_NP1 ,_, with_IW the_AT whole_NN1 of_IO Western_JJ history_NN1 ,_, takes_VVZ the_AT relation_NN1 with_IW the_AT Other_JJ as_CSA enacted_VVN in_II the_AT destiny_NN1 of_IO sedentary_JJ peoples_NN2 ,_, the_AT possessors_NN2 and_CC builders_NN2 of_IO the_AT earth_NN1 ._. 
Possession_NN1 is_VBZ preeminently_RR the_AT form_NN1 in_II which_DDQ the_AT other_NN1 becomes_VVZ the_AT same_DA ,_, by_II becoming_VVG mine._NNU (_( 46_MC )_) Ontology_NP1 ,_, therefore_RR ,_, though_CS outwardly_RR directed_VVN ,_, remains_VVZ always_RR centred_VVN in_II an_AT1 incorporating_VVG self_NN1 :_: '_" this_DD1 imperialism_NN1 of_IO the_AT same_DA '_GE ,_, Levinas_NP2 suggests_VVZ ,_, '_GE is_VBZ the_AT whole_JJ essence_NN1 of_IO freedom_NN1 '_GE (_( 87_MC )_) ._. 
For_IF freedom_NN1 is_VBZ maintained_VVN by_II a_AT1 self-possession_NN1 which_DDQ extends_VVZ itself_PPX1 to_II anything_PN1 that_CST threatens_VVZ its_APPGE identity_NN1 ._. 
In_II this_DD1 structure_NN1 European_JJ philosophy_NN1 reduplicates_VVZ Western_JJ foreign_JJ policy_NN1 ,_, where_CS democracy_NN1 at_II home_NN1 is_VBZ maintained_VVN through_II colonial_JJ or_CC neocolonial_JJ oppression_NN1 abroad_RL ._. 
Levinas_NP1 opposes_VVZ freedom_NN1 ,_, based_VVN on_II self-interest_NN1 ,_, to_II justice_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ respects_VVZ the_AT alterity_NN1 of_IO the_AT other_JJ and_CC can_VM only_RR be_VBI proposed_VVN through_II the_AT asymmetry_NN1 of_IO dialogue_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 also_RR implies_VVZ an_AT1 interrogation_NN1 of_IO the_AT imperialism_NN1 of_IO theory_NN1 itself_PPX1 ._. 
For_IF theory_NN1 ,_, as_CSA a_AT1 form_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 and_CC understanding_NN1 of_IO the_AT spectator_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ constitutively_RR unable_JK to_TO let_VVI the_AT other_JJ remain_VVI outside_II itself_PPX1 ,_, outside_II its_APPGE representation_NN1 of_IO the_AT panorama_NN1 which_DDQ it_PPH1 surveys_VVZ ,_, in_II a_AT1 state_NN1 of_IO singularity_NN1 or_CC separation_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 will_VM also_RR be_VBI true_JJ of_IO any_DD concept_NN1 ,_, because_CS by_II definition_NN1 the_AT concept_NN1 '_GE can_NN1 not_XX capture_VVI the_AT absolutely-other_NN1 '_GE ;_; and_CC ,_, to_II the_AT extent_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 must_VM invoke_VVI a_AT1 form_NN1 of_IO generality_NN1 ,_, of_IO language_NN1 itself_PPX1 ._. 
Any_DD conventional_JJ form_NN1 of_IO understanding_NN1 must_VM appropriate_VVI the_AT other_JJ ,_, in_II an_AT1 act_NN1 of_IO violence_NN1 and_CC reduction_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 leads_VVZ Levinas_NP2 to_TO denounce_VVI the_AT inability_NN1 of_IO theory_NN1 ,_, in_II its_APPGE drive_NN1 to_II comprehension_NN1 and_CC representation_NN1 ,_, to_TO do_VDI justice_NN1 to_II any_DD radical_JJ exteriority_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB how_RRQ can_VM we_PPIS2 know_VVI and_CC respect_VVI the_AT other_JJ ?_? 
Is_VBZ there_EX a_AT1 means_NN of_IO bridging_VVG the_AT gap_NN1 between_II knowledge_NN1 and_CC morality_NN1 that_CST avoids_VVZ the_AT problems_NN2 of_IO Kant_NP1 's_GE recourse_NN1 to_II the_AT aesthetic_JJ but_CCB also_RR resists_VVZ Lyotard_NP1 's_GE argument_NN1 that_CST the_AT two_MC are_VBR simply_RR incommensurable_JJ ?_? 
How_RRQ can_VM Levinas_NP2 '_GE ethics_NN work_VV0 differently_RR from_II ontology_NN1 ?_? 
Against_II the_AT egotism_NN1 of_IO the_AT preoccupation_NN1 of_IO being_VBG with_IW itself_PPX1 ,_, he_PPHS1 posits_VVZ a_AT1 relation_NN1 of_IO sociality_NN1 ,_, whereby_RRQ the_AT self_NN1 instead_II21 of_II22 assimilating_VVG the_AT other_NN1 opens_VVZ itself_PPX1 to_II it_PPH1 through_II a_AT1 relation_NN1 with_IW it_PPH1 ._. 
In_II the_AT place_NN1 of_IO the_AT correlation_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 with_IW vision_NN1 and_CC light_NN1 ,_, the_AT visual_JJ metaphor_NN1 by_II which_DDQ the_AT adequation_NN1 of_IO the_AT idea_NN1 with_IW the_AT thing_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN thought_VVN from_II Plato_NP1 to_II Heidegger_NP1 ,_, Levinas_NP2 proposes_VVZ language_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ in_II the_AT form_NN1 of_IO speech_NN1 enables_VVZ a_AT1 kind_NN1 of_IO invisible_JJ contact_NN1 between_II subjects_NN2 that_CST leaves_VVZ them_PPHO2 both_DB2 intact_JJ ._. 
Language_NN1 ,_, however_RR ,_, should_VM take_VVI the_AT form_NN1 of_IO dialogue_NN1 :_: whereas_CS the_AT universality_NN1 of_IO reason_NN1 means_VVZ that_CST it_PPH1 must_VM necessarily_RR renounce_VVI all_DB singularity_NN1 ,_, and_CC whereas_CS language_NN1 's_GE function_NN1 in_II conceptualizing_VVG thought_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO suppress_VVI the_AT other_JJ and_CC bring_VVI it_PPH1 within_II the_AT aegis_NN1 of_IO the_AT same_DA ,_, in_II dialogue_NN1 language_NN1 maintains_VVZ the_AT distance_NN1 between_II the_AT two_MC ;_; '_" their_APPGE commerce_NN1 '_GE ,_, as_CSA Levinas_NN2 puts_VVZ it_PPH1 ,_, '_GE is_VBZ ethical_JJ '_GE ._. 
Dialogism_NN1 allows_VVZ for_IF '_GE radical_JJ separation_NN1 ,_, the_AT strangeness_NN1 of_IO the_AT interlocutors_NN2 ,_, the_AT revelation_NN1 of_IO the_AT other_JJ to_II me_PPIO1 '_GE (_( 73_MC )_) ._. 
The_AT structure_NN1 of_IO dialogue_NN1 ,_, moreover_RR ,_, disallows_VVZ the_AT taking_VVG up_RP of_IO any_DD position_NN1 beyond_II the_AT interlocutors_NN2 from_II which_DDQ they_PPHS2 can_VM be_VBI integrated_VVN into_II a_AT1 larger_JJR totality_NN1 ._. 
The_AT relation_NN1 between_II them_PPHO2 ,_, therefore_RR ,_, is_VBZ not_XX oppositional_JJ ,_, nor_CC limitrophe_NN1 ,_, but_CCB one_MC1 of_IO alterity_NN1 ._. 
Dialogue_NN1 ,_, face_NN1 to_II face_NN1 conversation_NN1 ,_, maintains_VVZ a_AT1 non-symmetrical_JJ relation_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 separation_NN1 through_II speech_NN1 ._. 
In_II so_RR doing_VDG it_PPH1 breaches_VVZ any_DD totality_NN1 ,_, including_II History_NN1 :_: To_TO say_VVI that_CST the_AT other_NN1 can_VM remain_VVI absolutely_RR other_JJ ,_, that_CST he_PPHS1 enters_VVZ only_RR into_II the_AT relationship_NN1 of_IO conversation_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ to_TO say_VVI that_DD1 history_NN1 itself_PPX1 ,_, an_AT1 identification_NN1 of_IO the_AT same_DA ,_, can_VM not_XX claim_VVI to_TO totalise_VVI the_AT same_DA and_CC the_AT other_JJ ._. 
The_AT absolutely_RR other_JJ ,_, whose_DDQGE alterity_NN1 is_VBZ overcome_VVN in_II the_AT philosophy_NN1 of_IO immanence_NN1 on_II the_AT allegedly_RR common_JJ plane_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ,_, maintains_VVZ his_APPGE transcendence_NN1 in_II the_AT midst_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ._. 
The_AT same_DA is_VBZ essentially_RR identification_NN1 within_II the_AT diverse_JJ ,_, or_CC history_NN1 ,_, or_CC system_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX I_PPIS1 who_PNQS resist_VV0 the_AT system_NN1 ,_, as_CSA Kierkegaard_NP1 thought_VVD ;_; it_PPH1 is_VBZ the_AT other._NNU (_( 40_MC )_) The_AT thesis_NN1 of_IO the_AT primacy_NN1 of_IO History_NN1 ,_, Levinas_NP2 argues_VVZ ,_, forms_VVZ part_NN1 of_IO the_AT imperialism_NN1 of_IO the_AT same_DA ._. 
For_IF '_GE totalization_NN1 is_VBZ accomplished_VVN only_RR in_II history_NN1 ,_, when_CS the_AT historiographer_NN1 assimilates_VVZ all_DB particular_JJ existences_NN2 and_CC punctual_JJ moments_NN2 into_II the_AT time_NNT1 of_IO universal_JJ history_NN1 ,_, whose_DDQGE chronological_JJ order_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ assumed_VVN ,_, '_GE outlines_NN2 the_AT plot_NN1 of_IO being_VBG in_II itself_PPX1 ,_, analogous_JJ to_II nature_NN1 '_GE (_( 55_MC )_) ._. 
If_CS History_NN1 claims_VVZ to_TO incorporate_VVI the_AT other_JJ within_II a_AT1 larger_JJR impersonal_JJ spirit_NN1 or_CC idea_NN1 ,_, albeit_CS the_AT ruse_NN1 of_IO reason_NN1 ,_, Levinas_NP2 contends_VVZ that_DD1 '_VBZ this_DD1 alleged_JJ integration_NN1 is_VBZ cruelty_NN1 and_CC injustice_NN1 ,_, that_REX21 is_REX22 ,_, &lsqb;_( it_PPH1 &rsqb;_) ignores_VVZ the_AT Other_NN1 '_GE (_( 52_MC )_) ._. 
History_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT realm_NN1 of_IO violence_NN1 and_CC war_NN1 ;_; it_PPH1 constitutes_VVZ another_DD1 form_NN1 by_II which_DDQ the_AT other_NN1 is_VBZ appropriated_VVN into_II the_AT same_DA ._. 
For_IF the_AT other_JJ to_TO remain_VVI other_JJ it_PPH1 must_VM not_XX derive_VVI its_APPGE meaning_NN1 from_II History_NN1 but_CCB must_VM instead_RR have_VHI a_AT1 separate_JJ time_NNT1 which_DDQ differs_VVZ from_II historical_JJ time_NNT1 ._. 
Whereas_CS for_IF Heidegger_NN1 time_NNT1 and_CC history_NN1 are_VBR the_AT horizon_NN1 of_IO Being_VBG ,_, for_IF Levinas_NN2 '_GE when_CS man_NN1 truly_RR approaches_VVZ the_AT Other_JJ he_PPHS1 is_VBZ uprooted_JJ from_II history_NN1 '_GE (_( 52_MC )_) ._. 
Time_NNT1 itself_PPX1 involves_VVZ the_AT '_GE relationship_NN1 to_II unattainable_JJ alterity_NN1 '_GE ,_, an_AT1 absolute_JJ past_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ in_II temporality_NN1 ,_, in_II anteriority_NN1 ,_, that_CST we_PPIS2 find_VV0 an_AT1 otherness_NN1 beyond_II being_VBG ._. 
Levinas_NP1 calls_VVZ the_AT relation_NN1 in_II which_DDQ an_AT1 infinite_JJ distance_NN1 is_VBZ maintained_VVN from_II the_AT other_NN1 '_GE metaphysics_NN1 '_GE ._. 
Metaphysics_NN2 ,_, he_PPHS1 writes_VVZ ,_, '_GE transcendence_NN1 ,_, the_AT welcoming_JJ of_IO the_AT other_JJ by_II the_AT same_DA ,_, of_IO the_AT Other_JJ by_II me_PPIO1 ,_, is_VBZ concretely_RR produced_VVN as_II the_AT calling_NN1 into_II question_NN1 of_IO the_AT same_DA by_II the_AT other_JJ ,_, that_REX21 is_REX22 ,_, as_CSA the_AT ethics_NN that_CST accomplishes_VVZ the_AT critical_JJ essence_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 '_GE (_( 43_MC )_) ._. 
Metaphysics_NN2 therefore_RR precedes_VVZ ontology_NN1 ._. 
Though_CS a_AT1 troubling_JJ term_NN1 ,_, metaphysics_NN2 for_IF Levinas_NN2 names_VVZ a_AT1 counter-tradition_NN1 in_II philosophy_NN1 in_II which_DDQ the_AT idea_NN1 of_IO infinity_NN1 breaches_VVZ all_DB totality_NN1 because_CS '_" it_PPH1 is_VBZ a_AT1 relationship_NN1 with_IW a_AT1 surplus_NN1 always_RR exterior_JJ to_II the_AT totality_NN1 '_GE (_( 22_MC )_) ._. 
This_DD1 surplus_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT effect_NN1 of_IO the_AT radical_JJ alterity_NN1 of_IO the_AT other_JJ ,_, whether_CSW as_58 '_GE face_NN1 '_GE or_CC as_CSA death_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ prevents_VVZ the_AT totality_NN1 from_II being_VBG constituted_VVN as_II such_DA ._. 
As_CSA might_VM be_VBI expected_VVN ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 absolute_JJ otherness_NN1 ,_, and_CC the_AT ability_NN1 to_II excise_NN1 all_DB violence_NN1 in_II the_AT relation_NN1 with_IW it_PPH1 ,_, which_DDQ Derrida_NP1 questions_NN2 in_II the_AT first_MD of_IO his_APPGE discussions_NN2 of_IO Levinas_NP2 ._. 
Whereas_CS Levinas_NN2 ,_, like_II Habermas_NP2 ,_, posits_VVZ an_AT1 authentic_JJ language_NN1 of_IO expression_NN1 which_DDQ abhors_VVZ the_AT distortions_NN2 of_IO '_GE rhetoric_NN1 '_GE ,_, Derrida_NP1 argues_VVZ that_CST such_DA alterity_NN1 is_VBZ constituted_VVN not_XX through_II dialogue_NN1 but_CCB rather_RR through_II the_AT operation_NN1 of_IO language_NN1 itself_PPX1 :_: Levinas_NP2 '_GE transcendence-as-surplus_NN1 is_VBZ therefore_RR redefined_VVN as_II a_AT1 Derridean_JJ supplement_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 would_VM mean_VVI that_CST there_EX can_VM never_RR be_VBI an_AT1 authentic_JJ speech_NN1 of_IO the_AT other_JJ as_II such_DA ,_, a_AT1 position_NN1 which_DDQ certainly_RR troubles_VVZ Levinas_NP2 '_GE fundamental_JJ argument_NN1 ._. 
Despite_II their_APPGE differences_NN2 ,_, Derrida_NP1 's_GE keen_JJ interest_NN1 in_II Levinas_NP2 ,_, as_CSA Christopher_NP1 Norris_NP1 has_VHZ argued_VVN in_II scrupulously_RR non-Derridean_JJ terms_NN2 ,_, points_VVZ to_TO '_GE the_AT ultimately_RR ethical_JJ nature_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE enterprise_NN1 '_GE ._. 
The_AT early_JJ essay_NN1 on_II Levinas_NP2 ,_, dating_VVG from_II 1964_MC ,_, shows_VVZ the_AT extent_NN1 to_II which_DDQ Derrida_NP1 has_VHZ been_VBN implicated_VVN in_II such_DA questions_NN2 from_II the_AT first_MD though_RR ,_, contra_NN1 Norris_NP1 ,_, he_PPHS1 has_VHZ always_RR shown_VVN that_CST the_AT conditions_NN2 of_IO '_GE writing_NN1 '_GE that_DD1 make_VV0 ethics_NN possible_JJ also_RR makes_VVZ them_PPHO2 impossible_JJ ._. 
Certain_JJ orientations_NN2 of_IO his_APPGE work_NN1 can_VM be_VBI affiliated_VVN to_II Levinas_NP2 '_GE attempt_NN1 to_TO shift_VVI the_AT relation_NN1 to_II alterity_NN1 from_II an_AT1 appropriation_NN1 by_II the_AT same_DA into_II its_APPGE totality_NN1 to_II a_AT1 respect_NN1 for_IF the_AT other_NN1 's_GE heterogeneity_NN1 ._. 
Derrida_NN1 has_VHZ even_RR described_VVN the_AT critique_NN1 of_IO logocentrism_NN1 as_58 '_GE above_II all_DB else_RR the_AT search_NN1 for_IF the_AT '_GE other_NN1 '_GE '_GE ._. 
This_DD1 can_VM be_VBI related_VVN to_II the_AT concern_NN1 in_II Derrida_NP1 's_GE work_NN1 with_IW the_AT politics_NN1 of_IO feminism_NN1 and_CC other_JJ positions_NN2 which_DDQ contest_VV0 institutional_JJ and_CC political_JJ appropriation_NN1 and_CC exclusion_NN1 ._. 
In_II recent_JJ years_NNT2 Levinas_NP2 has_VHZ himself_PPX1 articulated_VVN more_RGR explicitly_RR his_APPGE account_NN1 of_IO the_AT relation_NN1 of_IO the_AT ethical_JJ to_II the_AT political_JJ ._. 
If_CS there_EX were_VBDR just_RR two_MC ,_, as_CSA in_II the_AT face-to-face_JJ dialogue_NN1 ,_, then_RT the_AT ethical_JJ would_VM preside_VVI as_II the_AT injunction_NN1 of_IO responsibility_NN1 for_IF the_AT other_JJ ._. 
But_CCB as_CS31 soon_CS32 as_CS33 there_EX are_VBR three_MC ,_, he_PPHS1 suggests_VVZ ,_, then_RT the_AT ethical_JJ moves_NN2 into_II politics_NN1 ._. 
'_" We_PPIS2 can_VM never_RR '_GE ,_, Levinas_NP2 concedes_VVZ to_II Derrida_NP1 ,_, '_GE completely_RR escape_VV0 from_II the_AT language_NN1 of_IO ontology_NN1 and_CC politics_NN1 '_GE ._. 
But_CCB this_DD1 does_VDZ not_XX mean_VVI that_CST the_AT ethical_JJ has_VHZ to_TO renounce_VVI the_AT moral_JJ order_NN1 in_II the_AT political_JJ world_NN1 of_IO the_AT third_MD person_NN1 of_IO justice_NN1 ,_, of_IO government_NN1 ,_, institutions_NN2 ,_, or_CC the_AT law_NN1 ._. 
The_AT political_JJ can_VM retain_VVI an_AT1 ethical_JJ foundation_NN1 :_: Levinas_NP2 finds_VVZ his_APPGE example_NN1 for_IF this_DD1 ,_, unexpectedly_RR ,_, in_II Marx_NP1 's_GE famous_JJ comment_NN1 on_II idealist_JJ philosophers_NN2 that_CST the_AT point_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX to_TO describe_VVI the_AT world_NN1 but_CCB to_TO change_VVI it_PPH1 :_: In_II Marx_NP1 's_GE critique_NN1 we_PPIS2 find_VV0 an_AT1 ethical_JJ conscience_NN1 cutting_VVG through_II the_AT ontological_JJ identification_NN1 of_IO truth_NN1 with_IW an_AT1 ideal_JJ intelligibility_NN1 and_CC demanding_VVG that_DD1 theory_NN1 be_VBI converted_VVN into_II a_AT1 concrete_JJ praxis_NN1 of_IO concern_NN1 for_IF the_AT other_JJ ._. 
From_II this_DD1 perspective_NN1 Levinas_NP2 proposes_VVZ the_AT possibility_NN1 that_CST the_AT much_RR lamented_JJ '_GE subject_NN1 '_GE be_VBI brought_VVN back_RP not_XX as_II the_AT ontological_JJ subject_NN1 which_DDQ seeks_VVZ to_TO reduce_VVI everything_PN1 to_II itself_PPX1 but_CCB as_II an_AT1 ethical_JJ subject_NN1 defined_VVN in_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 the_AT other_JJ :_: '_GE Ethics_NN redefines_VVZ subjectivity_NN1 as_CSA this_DD1 heteronomous_JJ responsibility_NN1 in_II contrast_NN1 to_II autonomous_JJ freedom_NN1 '_GE ._. 
We_PPIS2 might_VM compare_VVI this_DD1 ethical_JJ relation_NN1 to_II Cixous_NP1 '_GE remarks_NN2 about_II the_AT need_NN1 to_TO love_VVI the_AT other_JJ or_CC Kristeva_NP1 's_GE recent_JJ preoccupation_NN1 with_IW love_NN1 which_DDQ ,_, from_II this_DD1 perspective_NN1 ,_, hardly_RR involves_VVZ the_AT sudden_JJ apostasy_NN1 of_IO which_DDQ she_PPHS1 has_VHZ been_VBN accused_VVN ,_, but_CCB rather_RR as_II21 for_II22 Levinas_NP2 consists_VVZ of_IO a_AT1 way_NN1 of_IO formulating_VVG a_AT1 '_GE responsibility_NN1 for_IF the_AT Other_JJ ,_, being-for-the-other_NN1 '_GE ._. 
In_II each_DD1 case_NN1 these_DD2 writers_NN2 can_VM be_VBI shown_VVN to_TO be_VBI trying_VVG to_TO place_VVI the_AT other_JJ outside_II the_AT sphere_NN1 of_IO mastery_NN1 rather_II21 than_II22 in_II a_AT1 relation_NN1 of_IO negation_NN1 or_CC of_IO reduplication_NN1 of_IO the_AT self_NN1 ._. 
Unlike_II a_AT1 conventional_JJ ethics_NN of_IO altruism_NN1 ,_, such_DA a_AT1 relation_NN1 remains_VVZ one_MC1 of_IO alterity_NN1 ._. 
There_EX will_VM always_RR be_VBI some_DD return_NN1 for_IF the_AT self_NN1 in_II any_DD gift_NN1 unless_CS it_PPH1 can_VM be_VBI articulated_VVN in_II an_AT1 economy_NN1 of_IO ingratitude_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 movement_NN1 without_IW return_NN1 ._. 
Unless_CS ,_, that_REX21 is_REX22 ,_, philosophy_NN1 can_VM become_VVI dissemination_NN1 :_: '_GE a_AT1 work_NN1 conceived_VVD radically_RR is_VBZ a_AT1 movement_NN1 of_IO the_AT same_DA unto_II the_AT other_NN1 which_DDQ never_RR returns_VVZ to_II the_AT same_DA '_GE ._. 
To_II the_AT story_NN1 of_IO Ulysses_NP1 ,_, Levinas_NP2 opposes_VVZ that_DD1 of_IO Abraham_NP1 who_PNQS leaves_VVZ his_APPGE fatherland_NN1 for_RR21 ever_RR22 ,_, never_RR to_TO return_VVI ._. 
This_DD1 figure_NN1 of_IO the_AT diaspora_NN1 returns_VVZ us_PPIO2 to_II one_MC1 of_IO the_AT most_RGT important_JJ aspects_NN2 of_IO Levinas_NP2 '_GE formulation_NN1 of_IO the_AT relation_NN1 of_IO the_AT ethical_JJ to_II the_AT political_JJ ,_, that_DD1 is_VBZ the_AT connections_NN2 which_DDQ he_PPHS1 makes_VVZ between_II the_AT structure_NN1 of_IO ontology_NN1 and_CC Eurocentrism_NN1 ,_, the_AT latter_DA '_GE disqualified_JJ '_GE ,_, as_CSA he_PPHS1 puts_VVZ it_PPH1 ,_, '_GE by_II so_RG many_DA2 horrors_NN2 '_GE ._. 
He_PPHS1 connects_VVZ the_AT form_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 that_CST is_VBZ self-centred_JJ but_CCB directed_VVD outwards_RL ,_, philosophy_NN1 as_58 '_GE egology_NN1 '_GE ,_, quite_RG explicitly_RR with_IW the_AT appropriating_JJ narcissism_NN1 of_IO the_AT West_ND1 ._. 
So_RR in_II the_AT past_JJ few_DA2 hundred_NNO years_NNT2 Europe_NP1 has_VHZ been_VBN ,_, as_CSA Gayatri_NP1 Chakravorty_NP1 Spivak_NP1 has_VHZ suggested_VVN ,_, constituted_JJ and_CC consolidated_JJ as_58 '_GE sovereign_JJ subject_NN1 ,_, indeed_RR sovereign_JJ and_CC subject_NN1 '_GE ._. 
Just_RR as_CSA the_AT colonized_JJ has_VHZ been_VBN constructed_VVN according_II21 to_II22 the_AT terms_NN2 of_IO the_AT colonizer_NN1 's_GE own_DA self-image_NN1 ,_, as_CSA the_AT '_GE self-consolidating_JJ other_NN1 '_GE ,_, so_CS Europe_NP1 consolidated_VVD itself_PPX1 as_CSA sovereign_JJ subject_NN1 by_II defining_VVG its_APPGE colonies_NN2 as_58 '_GE Others_NN2 '_GE ,_, even_RR as_CSA it_PPH1 constituted_VVD them_PPHO2 ,_, for_IF purposes_NN2 of_IO administration_NN1 and_CC the_AT expansion_NN1 of_IO markets_NN2 ,_, into_II programmed_JJ near-images_NN2 of_IO that_DD1 very_RG sovereign_JJ self_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ this_DD1 sovereign_JJ self_NN1 of_IO Europe_NP1 which_DDQ is_VBZ today_RT being_VBG deconstructed_VVN ,_, showing_VVG the_AT extent_NN1 to_II which_DDQ Europe_NP1 's_GE other_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN a_AT1 narcissistic_JJ self-image_NN1 through_II which_DDQ it_PPH1 has_VHZ constituted_VVN itself_PPX1 while_CS never_RR allowing_VVG it_PPH1 to_TO achieve_VVI a_AT1 perfect_JJ fit_JJ ._. 
This_DD1 can_VM be_VBI allied_VVN to_II Derrida_NP1 's_GE critique_NN1 of_IO '_GE a_AT1 certain_JJ fundamental_JJ Europeanization_NN1 of_IO world_NN1 culture_NN1 '_GE ._. 
Derrida_NN1 has_VHZ sometimes_RT been_VBN criticized_VVN for_IF the_AT generality_NN1 of_IO phrases_NN2 such_II21 as_II22 '_GE the_AT history_NN1 of_IO the_AT West_ND1 '_GE or_CC the_AT claim_NN1 that_CST his_APPGE work_NN1 involves_VVZ a_AT1 critique_NN1 of_IO '_GE Western_JJ metaphysics_NN2 '_GE ._. 
Although_CS one_MC1 of_IO the_AT earliest_JJT questions_NN2 put_VVN to_II him_PPHO1 in_II England_NP1 concerned_VVD this_DD1 category_NN1 of_IO '_GE the_AT West_ND1 '_GE ,_, in_II the_AT subsequent_JJ fervour_NN1 that_CST accompanied_VVD the_AT transformation_NN1 of_IO Derrida_NP1 's_GE work_NN1 into_II the_AT method_NN1 of_IO deconstruction_NN1 ,_, this_DD1 problem_NN1 tended_VVD to_TO slip_VVI out_II21 of_II22 view_NN1 ._. 
In_II its_APPGE largest_JJT and_CC perhaps_RR most_RGT significant_JJ perspective_NN1 ,_, deconstruction_NN1 involves_VVZ not_XX just_RR a_AT1 critique_NN1 of_IO the_AT grounds_NN2 of_IO knowledge_NN1 in_RR21 general_RR22 ,_, but_CCB specifically_RR of_IO the_AT grounds_NN2 of_IO Occidental_JJ knowledge_NN1 ._. 
The_AT equation_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 with_IW '_" what_DDQ is_VBZ called_VVN Western_JJ thought_NN1 ,_, the_AT thought_NN1 whose_DDQGE destiny_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO extend_VVI its_APPGE domains_NN2 while_CS the_AT boundaries_NN2 of_IO the_AT West_ND1 are_VBR drawn_VVN back_NN1 '_GE involves_VVZ the_AT very_JJ kind_NN1 of_IO assumption_NN1 that_CST Derrida_NP1 is_VBZ interrogating_VVG and_CC this_DD1 is_VBZ the_AT reason_NN1 for_IF his_APPGE constant_JJ emphasis_NN1 on_II its_APPGE being_VBG the_AT knowledge_NN1 of_IO the_AT West_ND1 ;_; in_II the_AT same_DA way_NN1 Foucault_NN1 also_RR emphasizes_VVZ that_CST he_PPHS1 is_VBZ specifically_RR discussing_VVG the_AT '_GE Western_JJ episteme_NN1 '_GE ._. 
The_AT assertion_NN1 that_CST Derrida_NP1 's_GE work_NN1 incurs_VVZ a_AT1 form_NN1 of_IO relativism_NN1 is_VBZ thus_RR exactly_RR to_II the_AT point_NN1 ,_, though_CS its_APPGE implications_NN2 are_VBR rather_RG different_JJ from_II those_DD2 generally_RR assumed_VVN in_II such_DA a_AT1 complaint_NN1 ._. 
For_CS we_PPIS2 can_VM say_VVI that_DD1 deconstruction_NN1 involves_VVZ the_AT decentralization_NN1 and_CC decolonization_NN1 of_IO European_JJ thought_NN1 insofar_CS21 as_CS22 it_PPH1 is_58 '_GE incapable_JJ of_IO respecting_VVG the_AT Being_VBG and_CC meaning_NN1 of_IO the_AT other_NN1 '_GE ,_, and_CC to_II the_AT extent_NN1 that_CST its_APPGE philosophical_JJ tradition_NN1 makes_NN2% '_GE common_JJ cause_NN1 with_IW oppression_NN1 and_CC with_IW the_AT totalitarianism_NN1 of_IO the_AT same_DA '_GE ._. 
This_DD1 has_VHZ been_VBN the_AT significance_NN1 of_IO Levinas_NP2 '_GE thought_NN1 for_IF Derrida_NP1 ._. 
As_CSA he_PPHS1 puts_VVZ it_PPH1 in_II Writing_NN1 and_CC Difference_NN1 ,_, at_II the_AT very_JJ moment_NN1 when_CS the_AT fundamental_JJ conceptual_JJ systems_NN2 of_IO Europe_NP1 are_VBR in_II the_AT process_NN1 of_IO taking_VVG over_RP all_DB of_IO humanity_NN1 ,_, Levinas_NP2 leads_VVZ us_PPIO2 instead_RR to_II '_GE an_AT1 inconceivable_JJ process_NN1 of_IO dismantling_VVG and_CC dispossession_NN1 '_GE ._. 
For_IF Levinas_NN2 '_GE thought_NN1 seeks_VVZ to_TO liberate_VVI itself_PPX1 from_II the_AT Greek_JJ domination_NN1 of_IO the_AT Same_DA and_CC the_AT One_PN1 ..._... as_CSA if_CS from_II oppression_NN1 itself_PPX1 an_AT1 oppression_NN1 certainly_RR comparable_JJ to_II none_PN21 other_PN22 in_II the_AT world_NN1 ,_, an_AT1 ontological_JJ or_CC transcendental_JJ oppression_NN1 ,_, but_CCB also_RR the_AT origin_NN1 or_CC alibi_NN1 of_IO all_DB oppression_NN1 in_II the_AT world_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ the_AT context_NN1 in_II which_DDQ to_TO set_VVI Derrida_NP1 's_GE own_DA intervention_NN1 in_RP Of_IO Grammatology_NN1 ._. 
Everyone_PN1 knows_VVZ that_CST that_DD1 book_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 critique_NN1 of_IO '_GE logocentrism_NN1 '_GE ;_; what_DDQ is_VBZ less_RGR often_RR recalled_VVN is_VBZ that_CST the_AT terms_NN2 of_IO the_AT critique_NN1 with_IW which_DDQ it_PPH1 opens_VVZ announce_VV0 the_AT design_NN1 of_IO focusing_VVG attention_NN1 on_II logocentrism_NN1 's_GE ethnocentrism_NN1 '_GE which_DDQ ,_, Derrida_NP1 suggests_VVZ ,_, is_58 '_GE nothing_PN1 but_II the_AT most_RGT original_JJ and_CC powerful_JJ ethnocentrism_NN1 ,_, in_II the_AT process_NN1 of_IO imposing_VVG itself_PPX1 upon_II the_AT world_NN1 '_GE ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ this_DD1 preoccupation_NN1 which_DDQ accounts_VVZ for_IF Derrida_NP1 's_GE choice_NN1 ,_, and_CC forceful_JJ interrogation_NN1 ,_, of_IO the_AT privileged_JJ examples_NN2 of_IO Saussure_NN1 where_CS he_PPHS1 focuses_VVZ on_II the_AT '_GE profound_JJ ethnocentrism_NN1 '_GE of_IO his_APPGE exclusion_NN1 of_IO writing_VVG Rousseau_NP1 and_CC Lvi-Strauss_NP1 ._. 
In_II the_AT case_NN1 of_IO the_AT latter_DA ,_, Derrida_NP1 's_GE interest_NN1 also_RR focuses_VVZ particularly_RR on_II the_AT way_NN1 in_II which_DDQ Lvi-Strauss_NP1 produces_VVZ his_APPGE knowledge_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 non-European_JJ civilization_NN1 according_II21 to_II22 a_AT1 doubled_JJ but_CCB non-contradictory_JJ logic_NN1 which_DDQ evades_VVZ identity-thinking_NN1 ._. 
The_AT well-known_JJ deconstruction_NN1 carried_VVN out_RP in_II '_GE Structure_NN1 ,_, Sign_VV0 ,_, and_CC Play_NN1 '_GE shows_NN2 how_RRQ the_AT constitution_NN1 of_IO anthropological_JJ knowledge_NN1 ,_, though_CS often_RR paraded_VVN as_CSA scientific_JJ and_CC objective_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ nevertheless_RR governed_VVN by_II a_AT1 problematic_JJ of_IO which_DDQ it_PPH1 remains_VVZ unaware_JJ :_: the_AT philosophical_JJ category_NN1 of_IO the_AT centre_NN1 which_DDQ Derrida_NP1 then_RT proceeds_VVZ to_TO articulate_VVI with_IW the_AT problem_NN1 of_IO Eurocentrism_NN1 ._. 
The_AT analysis_NN1 of_IO the_AT dialectics_NN2 of_IO the_AT centre_NN1 and_CC the_AT margin_NN1 can_VM thus_RR operate_VVI geographically_RR as_II31 well_II32 as_II33 conceptually_RR ,_, articulating_VVG the_AT power_NN1 relationships_NN2 between_II the_AT metropolitan_JJ and_CC the_AT colonial_JJ cultures_NN2 at_II their_APPGE geographical_JJ peripheries_NN2 ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ not_XX to_TO suggest_VVI ,_, however_RR ,_, that_DD1 deconstruction_NN1 in_II any_DD sense_NN1 brings_VVZ another_DD1 knowledge_NN1 to_TO bear_VVI :_: rather_RR it_PPH1 involves_VVZ a_AT1 critique_NN1 of_IO Western_JJ knowledge_NN1 that_CST works_VVZ by_II exploiting_VVG the_AT ambivalent_JJ resources_NN2 of_IO Western_JJ writing_NN1 ,_, as_CS21 if_CS22 Marxism_NN1 were_VBDR to_TO produce_VVI a_AT1 critique_NN1 of_IO ideology_NN1 without_IW the_AT advantage_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE science_NN1 (_( which_DDQ ,_, given_VVN the_AT current_JJ ambiguous_JJ status_NN1 of_IO Marxist_JJ science_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 possibility_NN1 to_TO be_VBI dismissed_VVN lightly_RR )_) ._. 
If_CS one_PN1 had_VHD to_TO answer_VVI ,_, therefore_RR ,_, the_AT general_JJ question_NN1 of_IO what_DDQ is_VBZ deconstruction_NN1 a_AT1 deconstruction_NN1 of_IO ,_, the_AT answer_NN1 would_VM be_VBI ,_, of_IO the_AT concept_NN1 ,_, the_AT authority_NN1 ,_, and_CC assumed_JJ primacy_NN1 of_IO ,_, the_AT category_NN1 of_IO '_GE the_AT West_ND1 '_GE ._. 
If_CS deconstruction_NN1 forms_VVZ part_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 more_RGR widespread_JJ attempt_NN1 to_TO decolonize_VVI the_AT forms_NN2 of_IO European_JJ thought_NN1 ,_, from_II this_DD1 perspective_NN1 Derrida_NP1 's_GE work_NN1 can_VM be_VBI understood_VVN as_CSA characteristically_RR postmodern._NNU postmodernism_NN1 can_VM best_RRT be_VBI defined_VVN as_CSA European_JJ culture_NN1 's_GE awareness_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ no_RR21 longer_RR22 the_AT unquestioned_JJ and_CC dominant_JJ centre_NN1 of_IO the_AT world_NN1 ._. 
Significantly_RR enough_RR one_MC1 of_IO the_AT very_RG earliest_JJT uses_NN2 of_IO the_AT term_NN1 '_GE postmodern_JJ '_GE ,_, dating_VVG from_II the_AT time_NNT1 of_IO the_AT Second_MD World_NN1 War_NN1 ,_, was_VBDZ that_DD1 of_IO Arnold_NP1 Toynbee_NP1 in_II his_APPGE A_ZZ1 Study_NN1 of_IO History_NN1 ._. 
He_PPHS1 used_VVD it_PPH1 to_TO describe_VVI the_AT new_JJ age_NN1 of_IO Western_JJ history_NN1 which_DDQ ,_, according_II21 to_II22 Toynbee_NP1 ,_, began_VVD in_II the_AT 1870s_MC2 with_IW the_AT simultaneous_JJ globalization_NN1 of_IO Western_JJ culture_NN1 and_CC the_AT re-empowerment_NN1 of_IO non-Western_JJ states_NN2 ._. 
If_CS this_DD1 new_JJ period_NN1 brought_VVN with_IW it_PPH1 a_AT1 phase_NN1 of_IO Spenglerian_JJ pessimism_NN1 after_II the_AT long_JJ years_NNT2 of_IO Victorian_JJ optimism_NN1 ,_, Toynbee_NP1 did_VDD not_XX himself_PPX1 assume_VVI that_CST the_AT West_ND1 was_VBDZ in_II decline_NN1 as_II such_DA ,_, but_CCB rather_RG that_RG paradoxically_RR the_AT globalization_NN1 of_IO Western_JJ civilization_NN1 was_VBDZ being_VBG accompanied_VVN by_II a_AT1 self-consciousness_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE own_DA cultural_JJ relativization_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 process_NN1 to_II which_DDQ Toynbee_NP1 's_GE own_DA equally_RR totalizing_VVG and_CC relativizing_VVG history_NN1 was_VBDZ designed_VVN to_TO contribute_VVI ._. 
Reviewing_VVG the_AT genesis_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE whole_JJ project_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 recounts_VVZ that_CST his_APPGE history_NN1 was_VBDZ written_VVN against_II a_AT1 current_JJ Late_JJ Modern_JJ Western_JJ convention_NN1 of_IO identifying_VVG a_AT1 parvenu_NN1 and_CC provincial_JJ Western_JJ Society_NN1 's_GE history_NN1 with_IW '_GE History_NN1 '_GE ,_, writ_VVN large_JJ ,_, sans_FW phrase_NN1 ._. 
In_II the_AT writer_NN1 's_GE view_NN1 this_DD1 convention_NN1 was_VBDZ the_AT preposterous_JJ off-spring_NN of_IO a_AT1 distorting_JJ egocentric_JJ illusion_NN1 to_II which_DDQ the_AT children_NN2 of_IO a_AT1 Western_JJ Civilisation_NN1 had_VHD succumbed_VVN like_II the_AT children_NN2 of_IO all_DB other_JJ known_JJ civilisations_NN2 and_CC known_VVN primitive_JJ societies_NN2 ._. 
Postmodernism_NN1 ,_, therefore_RR ,_, becomes_VVZ a_AT1 certain_JJ self-consciousness_NN1 about_II a_AT1 culture_NN1 's_GE own_DA historical_JJ relativity_NN1 which_DDQ begins_VVZ to_TO explain_VVI why_RRQ ,_, as_CSA its_APPGE critics_NN2 complain_VV0 ,_, it_PPH1 also_RR involves_VVZ the_AT loss_NN1 of_IO the_AT sense_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 absoluteness_NN1 of_IO any_DD Western_JJ account_NN1 of_IO History_NN1 ._. 
Today_RT ,_, if_CS we_PPIS2 pose_VV0 the_AT difficult_JJ question_NN1 of_IO the_AT relation_NN1 of_IO poststructuralism_NN1 to_II postmodernism_NN1 ,_, one_MC1 distinction_NN1 between_II them_PPHO2 that_DD1 might_VM be_VBI drawn_VVN would_VM be_VBI that_CST whereas_CS postmodernism_NN1 seems_VVZ to_TO include_VVI the_AT problematic_JJ of_IO the_AT place_NN1 of_IO Western_JJ culture_NN1 in_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 non-Western_JJ cultures_NN2 ,_, poststructuralism_NN1 as_II a_AT1 category_NN1 seems_VVZ not_XX to_TO imply_VVI such_DA a_AT1 perspective_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 ,_, however_RR ,_, is_VBZ hardly_RR the_AT case_NN1 ,_, for_IF it_PPH1 rather_RR involves_VVZ if_CS anything_PN1 a_AT1 more_RGR active_JJ critique_NN1 of_IO the_AT Eurocentric_JJ premises_NN2 of_IO Western_JJ knowledge_NN1 ._. 
The_AT difference_NN1 would_VM be_VBI that_CST it_PPH1 does_VDZ not_XX offer_VVI a_AT1 critique_NN1 by_II positioning_VVG itself_PPX1 outside_RL '_GE the_AT West_ND1 '_GE ,_, but_CCB rather_RR uses_VVZ its_APPGE own_DA alterity_NN1 and_CC duplicity_NN1 in_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO effect_VVI its_APPGE deconstruction_NN1 ._. 
In_II this_DD1 context_NN1 ,_, we_PPIS2 may_VM note_VVI ,_, attempts_NN2 to_TO account_VVI for_IF poststructuralism_NN1 in_II31 terms_II32 of_II33 the_AT aftermath_NN1 of_IO the_AT events_NN2 of_IO May_NPM1 68_MC seem_VV0 positively_RR myopic_JJ ,_, lacking_VVG the_AT very_RG historical_JJ perspective_NN1 to_II which_DDQ they_PPHS2 lay_VV0 claim_NN1 ._. 
Contrary_NN1 ,_, then_RT ,_, to_II some_DD of_IO its_APPGE more_RGR overreaching_JJ definitions_NN2 ,_, postmodernism_NN1 itself_PPX1 could_VM be_VBI said_VVN to_TO mark_VVI not_XX just_RR the_AT cultural_JJ effects_NN2 of_IO a_AT1 new_JJ stage_NN1 of_IO '_GE late_JJ '_GE capitalism_NN1 ,_, but_CCB the_AT sense_NN1 of_IO the_AT loss_NN1 of_IO European_JJ history_NN1 and_CC culture_NN1 as_CSA History_NN1 and_CC Culture_NN1 ,_, the_AT loss_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE unquestioned_JJ place_NN1 at_II the_AT centre_NN1 of_IO the_AT world_NN1 ._. 
We_PPIS2 could_VM say_VVI that_CST if_CS ,_, according_II21 to_II22 Foucault_NP1 ,_, the_AT centrality_NN1 of_IO '_GE Man_NN1 '_GE dissolved_JJ at_II the_AT end_NN1 of_IO the_AT eighteenth_MD century_NNT1 as_II the_AT '_GE Classical_JJ Order_NN1 '_GE gave_VVD way_NN1 to_II '_GE History_NN1 '_GE ,_, today_RT at_II the_AT end_NN1 of_IO the_AT twentieth_MD century_NNT1 ,_, as_58 '_GE History_NN1 '_GE gives_VVZ way_NN1 to_II the_AT '_GE Postmodern_JJ '_GE ,_, we_PPIS2 are_VBR witnessing_VVG the_AT dissolution_NN1 of_IO '_GE the_AT West_ND1 '_GE ._. 
Marxism_NN1 and_CC the_AT question_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 Marxist_JJ literary_JJ criticism_NN1 has_VHZ not_XX produced_VVN a_AT1 new_JJ theory_NN1 in_RP over_RG twenty_MC years_NNT2 ._. 
Not_XX since_CS Macherey_NP1 's_GE A_AT1 Theory_NN1 of_IO Literary_JJ Production_NN1 of_IO 1966_MC has_VHZ there_EX been_VBN any_DD fundamental_JJ theoretical_JJ innovation_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 date_NN1 and_CC this_DD1 gap_NN1 are_VBR by_RR31 no_RR32 means_RR33 fortuitous_JJ ._. 
For_IF much_DA1 of_IO this_DD1 century_NNT1 Marxist_JJ literary_JJ criticism_NN1 monopolized_VVD the_AT realm_NN1 of_IO literary_JJ theory_NN1 ,_, for_IF the_AT simple_JJ reason_NN1 that_CST only_JJ Marxists_NN2 consistently_RR believed_VVN in_II its_APPGE value_NN1 and_CC strategic_JJ necessity._NNU 2_MC But_CCB since_CS the_AT rise_NN1 of_IO structuralism_NN1 in_II the_AT sixties_MC2 Marxist_JJ criticism_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN more_RGR and_CC more_RRR on_II the_AT defensive_JJ ._. 
Marxist_JJ humanists_NN2 still_RR often_RR consider_VV0 structuralism_NN1 simply_RR as_II an_AT1 attack_NN1 on_II Marxism_NN1 ;_; this_DD1 theory_NN1 would_VM be_VBI more_RGR persuasive_JJ if_CS so_RG many_DA2 structuralists_NN2 had_VHD not_XX also_RR been_VBN Marxists_NN2 ._. 
By_II contrast_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ certainly_RR the_AT case_NN1 that_CST ,_, with_IW certain_JJ notable_JJ exceptions_NN2 ,_, there_EX are_VBR few_DA2 Marxist_JJ poststructuralists_NN2 ._. 
If_CS by_II the_AT late_JJ seventies_MC2 the_AT intellectual_JJ arguments_NN2 of_IO poststructuralism_NN1 began_VVD to_TO seem_VVI virtually_RR unanswerable_JJ ,_, resistance_NN1 eventually_RR crystallized_VVN around_II the_AT question_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ._. 
In_II its_APPGE preoccupation_NN1 with_IW textuality_NN1 ,_, poststructuralism_NN1 had_VHD apparently_RR forgotten_VVN all_DB about_II it_PPH1 ._. 
The_AT earliest_JJT such_DA critique_NN1 in_II the_AT field_NN1 of_IO literary_JJ theory_NN1 was_VBDZ that_DD1 of_IO Frank_NP1 Lentricchia_NP1 ,_, who_PNQS organized_VVD his_APPGE entire_JJ account_NN1 of_IO modern_JJ criticism_NN1 around_II the_AT premise_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 '_GE repeated_JJ and_CC extremely_RR subtle_JJ denial_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 by_II a_AT1 variety_NN1 of_IO contemporary_JJ theorists_NN2 '_GE ._. 
Lentricchia_NP1 's_GE argument_NN1 was_VBDZ quickly_RR endorsed_VVN by_II Terry_NP1 Eagleton_NP1 who_PNQS claimed_VVD first_MD that_DD1 poststructuralism_NN1 represented_VVD a_AT1 '_GE hedonist_NN1 withdrawal_NN1 from_II history_NN1 '_GE (_( aestheticism_NN1 )_) and_CC ,_, a_AT1 year_NNT1 later_RRR ,_, that_CST it_PPH1 amounted_VVD to_II a_AT1 more_RGR menacing_JJ holocaust-like_JJ '_GE liquidation_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 '_GE ._. 
Moving_VVG beyond_II the_AT confines_NN2 of_IO the_AT literary_JJ ,_, perry_NN1 Anderson_NP1 has_VHZ similarly_RR dismissed_VVN all_DB poststructuralism_NN1 on_II the_AT grounds_NN2 that_CST it_PPH1 represents_58 '_GE the_AT randomisation_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 '_GE ._. 
But_CCB what_DDQ ,_, we_PPIS2 might_VM pause_VVI to_TO ask_VVI ,_, is_VBZ this_DD1 remark_NN1 supposed_JJ to_TO suggest_VVI ?_? 
Is_VBZ Anderson_NP1 using_VVG the_AT word_NN1 '_GE random_NN1 '_GE in_II its_APPGE mathematical_JJ sense_NN1 ,_, as_CSA one_PN1 out_II21 of_II22 a_AT1 series_NN ,_, or_CC in_II its_APPGE statistical_JJ sense_NN1 in_II which_DDQ each_DD1 item_NN1 has_VHZ an_AT1 individual_JJ chance_NN1 ?_? 
It_PPH1 seems_VVZ not_XX ._. 
More_RGR likely_JJ he_PPHS1 is_VBZ using_VVG it_PPH1 in_II the_AT more_RGR everyday_JJ usage_NN1 of_IO '_" not_XX sent_VVN or_CC guided_VVN in_II any_DD special_JJ direction_NN1 ;_; having_VHG no_AT definite_JJ aim_NN1 or_CC purpose_NN1 '_GE (_( OED_NP1 )_) ,_, which_DDQ suggests_VVZ that_CST any_DD such_DA view_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 must_VM have_VHI no_AT end_NN1 ,_, and_CC therefore_RR no_AT teleology_NN1 ._. 
In_II other_JJ words_NN2 ,_, what_DDQ we_PPIS2 are_VBR really_RR dealing_VVG with_IW here_RL is_VBZ a_AT1 defence_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 belief_NN1 in_II the_AT rationality_NN1 of_IO the_AT historical_JJ process_NN1 ._. 
Anderson_NP1 's_GE history_NN1 must_VM work_VVI according_II21 to_II22 a_AT1 rational_JJ principle_NN1 ,_, the_AT dialectic_NN1 ,_, and_CC be_VBI moving_VVG towards_II an_AT1 end_NN1 which_DDQ will_VM reveal_VVI and_CC enact_VVI its_APPGE meaning_NN1 ._. 
Without_IW such_DA a_AT1 purpose_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ assumed_VVN ,_, history_NN1 must_VM be_VBI meaningless_JJ ._. 
The_AT terms_NN2 of_IO this_DD1 argument_NN1 repeat_VV0 exactly_RR those_DD2 of_IO the_AT critical_JJ debate_NN1 about_II univocal_JJ meaning_NN1 ,_, according_II21 to_II22 which_DDQ the_AT only_JJ alternative_NN1 to_II the_AT idea_NN1 that_CST history_NN1 has_VHZ a_AT1 single_JJ meaning_NN1 must_VM be_VBI that_CST it_PPH1 has_VHZ none_PN at_RR21 all_RR22 ._. 
But_CCB of_RR21 course_RR22 no_PN121 one_PN122 has_VHZ really_RR been_VBN suggesting_VVG that_DD1 history_NN1 has_VHZ no_AT meaning_NN1 ,_, for_IF the_AT obvious_JJ reason_NN1 that_CST any_DD interpretation_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 as_CSA such_DA must_VM ipso_RR21 facto_RR22 assert_VVI meaning_NN1 ._. 
What_DDQ is_VBZ in_II dispute_NN1 is_VBZ whether_CSW history_NN1 has_VHZ a_AT1 meaning_NN1 as_58 '_GE History_NN1 '_GE ._. 
One_MC1 alternative_NN1 would_VM be_VBI that_DD1 history_NN1 may_VM be_VBI made_VVN up_RP of_IO the_AT multiple_JJ meanings_NN2 of_IO specific_JJ ,_, particular_JJ histories_NN2 without_IW their_APPGE necessarily_RR being_VBG in_II turn_NN1 part_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 larger_JJR meaning_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 underlying_JJ Idea_NN1 or_CC force_NN1 ._. 
Anderson_NP1 's_GE accusation_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ conflates_VVZ the_AT concept_NN1 of_IO the_AT differential_NN1 with_IW the_AT notion_NN1 of_IO the_AT random_JJ ,_, is_VBZ therefore_RR really_RR directed_VVN against_II the_AT possibility_NN1 that_CST different_JJ histories_NN2 may_VM have_VHI different_JJ meanings_NN2 ._. 
But_CCB why_RRQ deny_VVI that_DD1 history_NN1 can_VM have_VHI multiple_JJ meanings_NN2 ?_? 
De_RR21 facto_RR22 ,_, it_PPH1 already_RR has_VHZ for_IF even_RR for_IF a_AT1 Marxist_NN1 who_PNQS believes_VVZ in_II the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO '_GE science_NN1 '_GE there_EX exists_VVZ the_AT multiplicity_NN1 of_IO meanings_NN2 of_IO truth_NN1 and_CC of_IO error_NN1 ._. 
We_PPIS2 are_VBR therefore_RR not_XX so_RG much_DA1 talking_VVG about_II a_AT1 single_JJ meaning_NN1 as_II a_AT1 true_JJ one_PN1 versus_II all_DB the_AT others_NN2 which_DDQ are_VBR false_JJ ._. 
In_II a_AT1 similar_JJ way_NN1 ,_, even_RR '_GE History_NN1 '_GE as_II a_AT1 metahistorical_JJ category_NN1 achieves_VVZ its_APPGE single_JJ meaning_NN1 by_II subsuming_VVG a_AT1 range_NN1 of_IO ethico-political_JJ concepts_NN2 ,_, such_II21 as_II22 '_GE progress_NN1 '_GE ,_, '_GE human_JJ freedom_NN1 '_GE ,_, '_GE necessity_NN1 '_GE and_CC the_AT like_JJ ,_, which_DDQ then_RT form_VV0 the_AT basis_NN1 of_IO the_AT regulation_NN1 and_CC authorization_NN1 of_IO historical_JJ interpretation_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 shifts_VVZ the_AT discussion_NN1 away_II21 from_II22 any_DD simple_JJ antithesis_NN1 ._. 
The_AT question_NN1 about_II history_NN1 then_RT becomes_VVZ the_AT more_RGR interesting_JJ one_MC1 of_IO the_AT relation_NN1 between_II different_JJ significations_NN2 ,_, and_CC the_AT ways_NN2 in_II which_DDQ such_DA differences_NN2 can_VM ,_, or_CC can_VM not_XX ,_, be_VBI articulated_VVN and_CC unified_VVN under_II the_AT same_DA horizon_NN1 of_IO totalization_NN1 to_TO produce_VVI a_AT1 single_JJ meaning_NN1 ._. 
Until_CS the_AT lonely_JJ hour_NNT1 arrives_VVZ in_II which_DDQ the_AT philosophical_JJ proof_NN1 of_IO the_AT truth_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 is_VBZ produced_VVN ,_, then_RT history_NN1 will_VM inevitably_RR continue_VVI as_II a_AT1 representation_NN1 and_CC interpretation_NN1 of_IO the_AT past_NN1 rather_II21 than_II22 Marxist_JJ truth_NN1 and_CC the_AT false_JJ or_CC limited_JJ interpretation_NN1 of_IO all_DB other_JJ historians_NN2 ._. 
As_II a_AT1 form_NN1 of_IO understanding_NN1 history_NN1 will_VM necessarily_RR also_RR be_VBI subject_II21 to_II22 the_AT whole_JJ range_NN1 of_IO questions_NN2 that_CST surround_VV0 interpretation_NN1 ,_, representation_NN1 and_CC narrative_NN1 in_II any_DD form_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ the_AT reason_NN1 why_RRQ in_II recent_JJ years_NNT2 theorists_NN2 have_VH0 turned_VVN their_APPGE attention_NN1 back_RP to_II the_AT question_NN1 of_IO the_AT historicity_NN1 of_IO historical_JJ understanding_NN1 ,_, to_II its_APPGE status_NN1 as_CSA interpretation_NN1 ,_, representation_NN1 or_CC narrative_NN1 ,_, and_CC ,_, more_RGR radically_RR ,_, to_II the_AT problem_NN1 of_IO temporality_NN1 as_II such_DA ._. 
Lentricchia_NN1 and_CC Eagleton_NP1 ,_, by_II contrast_NN1 ,_, invoke_VV0 history_NN1 rather_RG like_JJ '_GE the_AT political_JJ '_" :_: an_AT1 outside_JJ ,_, a_AT1 concrete_NN1 ,_, that_DD1 somehow_RR remains_VVZ exterior_JJ to_TO '_GE theory_NN1 '_GE ,_, unaffected_JJ by_II it_PPH1 ,_, capable_JJ of_IO enclosing_VVG it_PPH1 and_CC even_RR swallowing_VVG it_PPH1 up_RP as_CS21 if_CS22 history_NN1 were_VBDR in_II a_AT1 position_NN1 to_TO consume_VVI theory_NN1 ._. 
History_NN1 here_RL is_VBZ self-evident_JJ and_CC needs_VVZ no_AT elaboration_NN1 ._. 
We_PPIS2 all_DB know_VV0 what_DDQ it_PPH1 is_VBZ (_( apparently_RR )_) ._. 
But_CCB the_AT problem_NN1 with_IW the_AT idea_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ possible_JJ to_TO dismiss_VVI structuralism_NN1 and_CC poststructuralism_NN1 with_IW the_AT charge_NN1 that_CST they_PPHS2 neglect_VV0 history_NN1 is_VBZ that_CST this_DD1 argument_NN1 itself_PPX1 neglects_VVZ history_NN1 ._. 
For_IF history_NN1 ,_, as_CSA Althusser_NP1 noted_VVD ,_, has_VHZ always_RR been_VBN a_AT1 problematical_JJ concept_NN1 ._. 
Any_DD examination_NN1 of_IO the_AT history_NN1 of_IO '_GE history_NN1 ,_, will_VM demonstrate_VVI that_CST it_PPH1 has_VHZ never_RR had_VHN the_AT immediate_JJ certainty_NN1 that_CST is_VBZ implied_VVN in_II the_AT all_DB too_RG frequent_JJ invocation_NN1 of_IO ,_, concrete_JJ history_NN1 '_GE ._. 
Far_RR from_II being_VBG the_AT concrete_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 has_VHZ always_RR rather_RR been_VBN the_AT theoretical_JJ problem_NN1 ._. 
To_TO acknowledge_VVI that_CST amounts_VVZ to_II something_PN1 very_RG different_JJ from_II simply_RR excising_VVG history_NN1 as_II such_DA ._. 
Nevertheless_RR the_AT suggestion_NN1 that_CST structuralism_NN1 and_CC poststructuralism_NN1 have_VH0 denied_VVN history_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 persuasive_JJ one_PN1 which_DDQ now_RT has_VHZ wide_JJ currency_NN1 ._. 
Such_DA an_AT1 argument_NN1 ,_, in_II implying_VVG that_CST the_AT problem_NN1 is_VBZ simply_RR a_AT1 question_NN1 of_IO the_AT lack_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 or_CC of_IO its_APPGE presence_NN1 ,_, as_CS21 if_CS22 history_NN1 were_VBDR some_DD undifferentiated_JJ entity_NN1 that_CST could_VM just_RR be_VBI added_VVN or_CC taken_VVN away_RL ,_, stepped_VVN into_II or_CC got_VVN out_II21 of_II22 ,_, skates_VVZ over_II the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST the_AT real_JJ question_NN1 has_VHZ always_RR focused_VVN on_II the_AT much_RR more_RGR difficult_JJ issue_NN1 of_IO what_DDQ kind_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ,_, and_CC of_IO what_DDQ status_NN1 can_VM be_VBI accorded_VVN to_II historical_JJ thought_NN1 ._. 
The_AT reproach_NN1 that_CST poststructuralism_NN1 has_VHZ neglected_VVN history_NN1 really_RR consists_VVZ of_IO the_AT complaint_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 has_VHZ questioned_VVN History_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 becomes_VVZ clearer_JJR if_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ considered_VVN from_II the_AT more_RGR general_JJ perspective_NN1 of_IO post-modernism_NN1 which_DDQ has_VHZ been_VBN widely_RR characterized_VVN as_CSA involving_VVG a_AT1 return_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ,_, albeit_CS as_II a_AT1 category_NN1 of_IO representation_NN1 ._. 
In_II fact_NN1 it_PPH1 was_VBDZ rather_RG modernism_NN1 ,_, as_CSA its_APPGE name_NN1 implies_VVZ (_( from_II latin_NN1 modo_NN1 ,_, just_RR now_RT ,_, or_CC hodie_NN1 ,_, today_RT )_) ,_, that_CST tried_VVD to_TO awake_VVI from_II the_AT nightmare_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ,_, self-consciously_RR setting_VVG itself_PPX1 against_II the_AT past_NN1 ,_, and_CC rejecting_VVG forms_NN2 of_IO historical_JJ understanding_NN1 ._. 
The_AT argument_NN1 against_II poststructuralism_NN1 really_RR just_RR repeats_VVZ Lukcs_NP2 '_GE reproach_NN1 ,_, set_VVD out_RP in_II his_APPGE 1957_MC essay_NN1 '_GE The_AT Ideology_NN1 of_IO Modernism_NN1 '_GE ,_, that_DD1 modernism_NN1 involves_VVZ a_AT1 '_GE negation_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 '_GE ._. 
If_CS Lukcs_NN2 '_GE objections_NN2 to_II modernism_NN1 laid_VVD the_AT basis_NN1 for_IF all_DB contemporary_JJ objections_NN2 to_II poststructuralism_NN1 ,_, his_APPGE continuing_JJ influence_NN1 can_VM help_VVI us_PPIO2 to_TO understand_VVI why_RRQ history_NN1 in_RR21 particular_RR22 is_VBZ privileged_JJ here_RL ._. 
II_MC '_GE IN_II HISTORY_NN1 '_GE For_IF why_RRQ ,_, after_II all_DB ,_, '_GE history_NN1 '_GE at_RR21 all_RR22 ?_? 
Why_RRQ ,_, from_II the_AT point_NN1 of_IO view_NN1 of_IO Marxism_NN1 proper_JJ ,_, not_XX the_AT class-struggle_NN1 ,_, or_CC economics_NN1 ,_, the_AT state_NN1 ,_, or_CC social_JJ relations_NN2 ?_? 
The_AT stress_NN1 on_II history_NN1 as_CSA paramount_JJ provides_VVZ a_AT1 straightforward_JJ indication_NN1 as_II21 to_II22 where_RRQ such_DA arguments_NN2 are_VBR coming_VVG from_II :_: not_XX Marxism_NN1 in_RR21 general_RR22 as_II a_AT1 political_JJ practice_NN1 ,_, but_CCB the_AT Hegelian_JJ Marxism_NN1 of_IO the_AT philosophical_JJ tradition_NN1 initiated_VVN by_II Lukcs_NP2 '_GE History_NN1 and_CC Class_NN1 Consciousness_NN1 (_( 1923_MC )_) ._. 
Criticizing_VVG the_AT orthodox_JJ Marxism_NN1 which_DDQ regarded_VVD dialectics_NN2 as_II an_AT1 external_JJ law_NN1 validated_VVD by_II natural_JJ science_NN1 ,_, Lukcs_NP2 argued_VVD for_IF the_AT primacy_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 over_II economics_NN1 as_II the_AT most_RGT significant_JJ element_NN1 in_II the_AT methodology_NN1 of_IO Marxism_NN1 ._. 
His_APPGE stress_NN1 on_II Marxism_NN1 as_II a_AT1 historical_JJ method_NN1 that_CST presupposed_VVD and_CC required_VVN the_AT idea_NN1 of_IO totality_NN1 initiated_VVD a_AT1 course_NN1 that_CST determined_VVD the_AT history_NN1 of_IO Western_JJ Marxism_NN1 to_II our_APPGE own_DA day_NNT1 ._. 
That_DD1 history_NN1 ,_, from_II one_MC1 perspective_NN1 ,_, could_VM be_VBI seen_VVN as_II a_AT1 consistent_JJ struggle_NN1 to_TO retain_VVI Lukcs_NP2 '_GE legacy_NN1 in_II which_DDQ history_NN1 ,_, the_AT dialectic_NN1 and_CC the_AT totality_NN1 are_VBR interdependent_JJ to_II the_AT extent_NN1 that_CST each_DD1 is_VBZ essential_JJ to_II the_AT operation_NN1 of_IO the_AT other_JJ in_II the_AT production_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 Marxist_JJ science_NN1 ._. 
Poststructuralism_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ in_II its_APPGE own_DA way_NN1 also_RR takes_VVZ part_NN1 in_II that_DD1 history_NN1 of_IO Western_JJ Marxism_NN1 ,_, differs_VVZ only_RR insofar_CS21 as_CS22 it_PPH1 foregrounds_NN2 the_AT implications_NN2 of_IO the_AT theoretical_JJ difficulties_NN2 involved_VVN rather_II21 than_II22 repressing_VVG them_PPHO2 in_II31 pursuit_II32 of_II33 the_AT unrealized_JJ ideal_NN1 ._. 
For_IF Lukcs_NN2 '_GE legacy_NN1 could_VM also_RR be_VBI seen_VVN to_TO have_VHI bequeathed_VVN a_AT1 curse_NN1 ._. 
The_AT insistence_NN1 on_II history_NN1 as_II a_AT1 totality_NN1 ,_, necessary_JJ if_CS historical_JJ materialism_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO justify_VVI itself_PPX1 as_CSA true_JJ ,_, left_JJ Marxism_NN1 with_IW a_AT1 fragile_JJ category_NN1 that_CST from_II the_AT very_RG first_MD was_VBDZ always_RR on_II the_AT point_NN1 of_IO breaking_VVG apart_RL ._. 
To_TO characterize_VVI only_RR recent_JJ French_NN1 thought_VVD as_58 '_GE the_AT logic_NN1 of_IO disintegration_NN1 '_GE ,_, as_CSA Peter_NP1 Dews_NN2 has_VHZ recently_RR done_VDN ,_, masks_NN2 over_II the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST such_DA a_AT1 logic_NN1 is_VBZ fundamental_JJ to_II Marxism_NN1 itself_PPX1 ,_, the_AT unassimilable_JJ dark_JJ other_NN1 to_II its_58 '_GE primacy_NN1 of_IO the_AT category_NN1 of_IO totality_NN1 '_GE ._. 
Yet_RR if_CS Lukcs_NN2 laid_VVD this_DD1 theoretical_JJ burden_NN1 upon_II Western_JJ Marxism_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 had_VHD ,_, ironically_RR ,_, already_RR written_VVN the_AT narrative_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE subsequent_JJ history_NN1 in_II his_APPGE earlier_JJR ,_, pre-Marxist_JJ ,_, Theory_NN1 of_IO the_AT Novel_NN1 (_( 1920_MC )_) ._. 
In_II that_DD1 work_NN1 it_PPH1 is_VBZ possible_JJ to_TO see_VVI clearly_RR the_AT relation_NN1 between_II his_APPGE insistence_NN1 on_II totality_NN1 and_CC the_AT Romantic_JJ aesthetic_JJ of_IO totality_NN1 as_II the_AT inner_JJ necessity_NN1 that_CST moulds_VVZ all_DB works_NN of_IO art_NN1 ._. 
More_RGR significantly_RR ,_, totality_NN1 is_VBZ defined_VVN in_II31 terms_II32 of_II33 its_APPGE absence_NN1 for_IF modern_JJ man_NN1 who_PNQS exists_VVZ in_II a_AT1 relation_NN1 of_IO alienation_NN1 from_II the_AT world_NN1 ._. 
The_AT novel_NN1 ,_, according_II21 to_II22 Lukcs_NP2 ,_, consists_VVZ of_IO a_AT1 striving_NN1 for_IF unity_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 lost_JJ state_NN1 of_IO being_VBG represented_VVN for_IF him_PPHO1 as_II21 for_II22 many_DA2 German_JJ Romantics_NN2 by_II an_AT1 idealized_JJ picture_NN1 of_IO classical_JJ Greece_NP1 ,_, punctuated_VVN by_II the_AT continual_JJ intrusion_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 heterogeneous_JJ discontinuity_NN1 ._. 
Lukcs_NP1 argues_VVZ that_CST the_AT novel_NN1 can_VM transcend_VVI this_DD1 threat_NN1 of_IO dispersal_NN1 through_II an_AT1 assertion_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 continuous_JJ temporality_NN1 ,_, but_CCB at_II the_AT same_DA time_NNT1 he_PPHS1 formulates_VVZ the_AT process_NN1 in_II the_AT structure_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 fall_NN1 :_: '_GE Once_RR this_DD1 unity_NN1 disintegrated_VVD ,_, there_EX could_VM be_VBI no_AT more_RGR spontaneous_JJ totality_NN1 of_IO being_NN1 '_GE ._. 
This_DD1 account_NN1 ,_, whose_DDQGE origins_NN2 in_II German_JJ Romanticism_NN1 are_VBR obviously_RR comparable_JJ to_II Marx_NP1 's_GE ,_, points_VVZ to_II the_AT subsequent_JJ difficulty_NN1 for_IF Marxism_NN1 itself_PPX1 :_: the_AT lost_JJ '_" spontaneous_58 '_GE totality_NN1 of_IO being_NN1 can_VM never_RR be_VBI retrieved_VVN ._. 
The_AT objections_NN2 to_II poststructuralism_NN1 at_II one_MC1 level_NN1 therefore_RR represent_VV0 merely_RR the_AT latest_JJT version_NN1 of_IO the_AT Romantic_JJ nostalgia_NN1 for_IF this_DD1 unfallen_JJ totality_NN1 of_IO being_VBG ._. 
The_AT history_NN1 of_IO Western_JJ Marxism_NN1 amounts_VVZ to_II a_AT1 history_NN1 of_IO attempts_NN2 to_TO provide_VVI a_AT1 means_NN for_IF transcending_VVG the_AT condition_NN1 of_IO alienation_NN1 and_CC achieving_VVG that_CST lost_VVD totality_NN1 ,_, not_XX through_II irony_NN1 or_CC a_AT1 reified_JJ homogeneous_JJ temporality_NN1 ,_, as_CSA in_II Lukcs_NP2 '_GE novel_NN1 ,_, but_CCB ,_, according_II21 to_II22 his_APPGE formulation_NN1 of_IO Marxism_NN1 ,_, through_II history_NN1 and_CC class_NN1 consciousness_NN1 ._. 
The_AT problem_NN1 ,_, however_RR ,_, is_VBZ that_CST that_DD1 reconstituted_JJ totality_NN1 is_VBZ never_RR certain_JJ ,_, its_APPGE status_NN1 always_RR remains_VVZ ambivalent_JJ ._. 
The_AT appearance_NN1 of_IO History_NN1 and_CC Class_NN1 Consciousness_NN1 at_II the_AT height_NN1 of_IO the_AT Modernist_JJ movement_NN1 suggests_VVZ the_AT degree_NN1 to_II which_DDQ history_NN1 was_VBDZ being_VBG totalized_VVN by_II Lukcs_NP2 at_II the_AT very_JJ moment_NN1 when_CS the_AT process_NN1 of_IO detotalization_NN1 had_VHD already_RR begun_VVN even_RR in_II the_AT aporetic_JJ possibilities_NN2 of_IO his_APPGE own_DA writings_NN2 ._. 
So_RR in_II The_AT Historical_JJ Novel_NN1 (_( 1937_MC )_) Lukcs_NN2 himself_PPX1 would_VM reject_VVI as_II delusion_NN1 what_DDQ he_PPHS1 calls_NN2 '_GE a_AT1 specially_RR strong_JJ temptation_NN1 to_TO try_VVI and_CC produce_VVI an_AT1 extensively_RR complete_JJ totality_NN1 '_GE ,_, advocating_VVG instead_RR a_AT1 dramatic_JJ concentration_NN1 and_CC intensification_NN1 of_IO ,_, outwardly_RR insignificant_JJ events_NN2 '_GE ._. 
Their_APPGE relation_NN1 to_II the_AT totality_NN1 emerges_VVZ not_XX through_II the_AT form_NN1 of_IO synecdoche_NN1 the_AT typical_JJ detail_NN1 which_DDQ can_VM then_RT be_VBI generalized_VVN as_CSA metaphor_NN1 but_CCB should_VM ,_, according_II21 to_II22 Lukcs_NP2 ,_, be_VBI drawn_VVN out_RP through_II the_AT narrative_NN1 which_DDQ inscribes_VVZ and_CC extends_VVZ a_AT1 connection_NN1 between_II such_DA moments_NN2 of_IO empirical_JJ reality_NN1 and_CC the_AT general_JJ laws_NN2 of_IO history_NN1 as_II a_AT1 totality_NN1 ._. 
Lukcs_NP1 '_GE historicism_NN1 depends_VVZ upon_II the_AT resolution_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 tension_NN1 between_II the_AT idea_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 and_CC the_AT singular_JJ detail_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB the_AT fundamental_JJ incommensurability_NN1 of_IO idea_NN1 and_CC event_NN1 re-emerges_VVZ in_II a_AT1 precariousness_NN1 in_II this_DD1 narrativization_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 where_CS each_DD1 disturbance_NN1 in_II the_AT writing_NN1 punctuates_VVZ it_PPH1 with_IW the_AT unassimilable_JJ ,_, discontinuous_JJ and_CC disjunctive_JJ temporality_NN1 of_IO the_AT event_NN1 ._. 
Lukcs_NP1 '_GE early_JJ assault_NN1 on_II Marxist_JJ economism_NN1 ,_, subsequently_RR retracted_VVD under_II criticism_NN1 from_II the_AT Leninist_JJ orthodoxy_NN1 of_IO the_AT Comintern_NN1 ,_, became_VVD particularly_RR influential_JJ in_II the_AT post-war_JJ period_NN1 among_II Marxist_JJ intellectuals_NN2 who_PNQS sought_VVD to_TO redefine_VVI a_AT1 new_JJ Marxist_JJ humanism_NN1 against_II the_AT economism_NN1 of_IO Stalinism_NN1 with_IW which_DDQ Lukcs_NN2 '_GE name_NN1 had_VHD by_II that_DD1 time_NNT1 itself_PPX1 become_VV0 associated_JJ ._. 
Most_DAT prominent_JJ among_II those_DD2 was_VBDZ Sartre_NP1 ,_, who_PNQS ,_, in_II the_AT spirit_NN1 of_IO Lukcs_NP2 ,_, declared_VVD that_DD1 '_VBZ both_RR sociology_NN1 and_CC economism_NN1 must_VM be_VBI dissolved_VVN in_II History_NN1 '_GE ._. 
Today_RT when_CS the_AT primacy_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 above_II all_DB else_RR the_AT economic_JJ ,_, even_RR class_NN1 conflict_NN1 is_VBZ asserted_VVN within_II a_AT1 Marxist_JJ discourse_NN1 ,_, together_RL with_IW an_AT1 accompanying_JJ defence_NN1 of_IO humanism_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 can_VM usually_RR be_VBI traced_VVN back_RP to_II a_AT1 Marxism_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 Sartrean_JJ existentialist_JJ form_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 comes_VVZ as_II no_AT surprise_NN1 ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, to_TO discover_VVI that_CST the_AT argument_NN1 about_II poststructuralism_NN1 neglecting_VVG history_NN1 was_VBDZ initiated_VVN by_II those_DD2 whose_DDQGE own_DA intellectual_JJ formation_NN1 can_VM be_VBI identified_VVN with_IW the_AT existential_JJ Marxist_JJ humanism_NN1 of_IO the_AT New_JJ Left_NN1 of_IO the_AT 1950s_MC2 and_CC early_JJ 1960s_MC2 ._. 
But_CCB the_AT case_NN1 of_IO Sartre_NP1 poignantly_RR demonstrates_VVZ that_CST the_AT return-to-history_JJ argument_NN1 can_VM really_RR only_RR succeed_VVI through_II a_AT1 form_NN1 of_IO historical_JJ amnesia_NN1 which_DDQ conveniently_RR forgets_VVZ that_DD1 history_NN1 was_VBDZ almost_RR impossible_JJ to_TO find_VVI ._. 
Any_DD historical_JJ investigation_NN1 will_VM show_VVI that_DD1 history_NN1 has_VHZ always_RR been_VBN a_AT1 problematic_JJ concept_NN1 for_IF Marxism_NN1 ,_, not_XX something_PN1 that_CST has_VHZ the_AT status_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 '_GE concrete_NN1 '_GE existence_NN1 outside_RL and_CC beyond_II theory_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 could_VM be_VBI demonstrated_VVN for_IF Lukcs_NN2 or_CC indeed_RR for_IF Marx_NP1 himself_PPX1 ._. 
But_CCB in_II the_AT context_NN1 of_IO the_AT alleged_JJ neglect_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 by_II poststructuralism_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 will_VM be_VBI more_RGR appropriate_JJ to_TO confine_VVI our_APPGE discussion_NN1 to_II the_AT Marxism_NN1 of_IO the_AT post-war_JJ period_NN1 ._. 
Here_RL too_RR history_NN1 has_VHZ always_RR been_VBN the_AT problem_NN1 not_XX the_AT solution_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ why_RRQ both_RR structuralism_NN1 and_CC poststructuralism_NN1 can_VM be_VBI positioned_VVN within_II the_AT broad_JJ trajectory_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 post-war_JJ Marxism_NN1 that_CST has_VHZ taken_VVN the_AT form_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 sustained_JJ enquiry_NN1 into_II concepts_NN2 of_IO history_NN1 and_CC even_RR the_AT very_JJ possibility_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE conceptualization_NN1 ._. 
III_MC THE_AT CRISIS_NN1 OF_IO STALINISM_NN1 Sartre_NP1 's_GE existential_JJ Marxism_NN1 ,_, as_CSA Ronald_NP1 Aronson_NP1 has_VHZ recently_RR emphasized_VVN ,_, was_VBDZ itself_PPX1 formulated_VVN in_II31 response_II32 to_II33 criticisms_NN2 of_IO the_AT function_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 in_II his_APPGE work_NN1 by_II the_AT untimely_JJ post-war_JJ '_GE post-Marxist_NN1 '_GE ,_, Maurice_NP1 Merleau-ponty_NN1 ._. 
In_II Adventures_NN2 of_IO the_AT Dialectic_NN1 (_( 1955_MC )_) ,_, Merleau-Ponty_NN1 accused_VVD the_AT Sartre_NP1 of_IO The_AT Communists_NN2 and_CC Peace_NN1 (_( 1952_MC )_) of_IO using_VVG an_AT1 existentialist_JJ ontology_NN1 to_TO justify_VVI communism_NN1 '_GE as_II a_AT1 completely_RR voluntary_JJ effort_NN1 to_TO go_VVI beyond_RL ,_, to_TO destroy_VVI and_CC to_TO recreate_VVI history_NN1 '_GE :_: Sartre_NP1 founds_VVZ communist_JJ action_NN1 precisely_RR by_II refusing_VVG any_DD productivity_NN1 to_II history_NN1 and_CC by_II making_VVG history_NN1 ,_, insofar_CS21 as_CS22 it_PPH1 is_VBZ intelligible_JJ ,_, the_AT immediate_JJ result_NN1 of_IO our_APPGE volitions_NN2 ._. 
As_II21 for_II22 the_AT rest_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ an_AT1 impenetrable_JJ opacity_NN1 ._. 
Through_II his_58 '_GE extreme_JJ subjectivism_NN1 '_GE ,_, Merleau-ponty_NN1 argued_VVD ,_, Sartre_NP1 avoided_VVD the_AT traditional_JJ claims_NN2 of_IO Marxism_NN1 to_TO be_VBI the_AT realization_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 and_CC thus_RR also_RR the_AT problem_NN1 of_IO the_AT relation_NN1 of_IO Marxism_NN1 to_II Stalinism_NN1 ._. 
With_IW the_AT growing_JJ recognition_NN1 of_IO the_AT real_JJ nature_NN1 of_IO the_AT Stalinist_JJ regime_NN1 ,_, the_AT ideological_JJ divisions_NN2 of_IO pre-war_JJ Europe_NP1 became_VVD too_RG simplistic_JJ to_TO sustain_VVI ,_, and_CC even_RR the_AT attentiste_NN1 (_( wait-and-see_VVI )_) attitude_NN1 taken_VVN after_II the_AT war_NN1 by_II many_DA2 Marxists_NN2 ,_, including_II Merleau-Ponty_NN1 himself_PPX1 in_II Humanism_NN1 and_CC Terror_NN1 (_( 1947_MC )_) ,_, became_VVD no_RR21 longer_RR22 tenable_JJ ._. 
Stalinism_NN1 posed_VVD a_AT1 crisis_NN1 for_IF Marxism_NN1 from_II which_DDQ it_PPH1 could_VM ,_, in_II a_AT1 sense_NN1 ,_, be_VBI said_VVN never_RR to_TO have_VHI recovered_VVN ,_, the_AT conundrum_NN1 being_VBG that_DD1 if_CS Marxism_NN1 is_VBZ true_JJ ,_, as_CSA it_PPH1 claims_VVZ that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ ,_, how_RRQ did_VDD the_AT first_MD Marxist_JJ state_NN1 end_VV0 up_RP as_RG Stalinist_JJ ?_? 
There_EX are_VBR basically_RR two_MC positions_NN2 that_CST can_VM be_VBI taken_VVN with_II31 respect_II32 to_II33 this_DD1 irrevocable_JJ split_NN1 between_II theory_NN1 and_CC practice_NN1 :_: either_DD1 Marxism_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN shown_VVN to_TO be_VBI not_XX true_JJ ,_, or_CC the_AT Marxism_NN1 of_IO Stalinist_JJ Russia_NP1 was_VBDZ not_XX proper_JJ Marxism_NN1 ._. 
The_AT second_MD alternative_NN1 poses_VVZ a_AT1 serious_JJ problem_NN1 ,_, however_RR ,_, insofar_CS21 as_CS22 it_PPH1 leads_VVZ to_II the_AT further_JJR question_NN1 ,_, how_RRQ could_VM such_DA Marxism_NN1 not_XX be_VBI true_JJ in_II the_AT sense_NN1 of_IO how_RRQ could_VM History_NN1 ,_, in_II the_AT objective_JJ processes_NN2 on_II which_DDQ a_AT1 scientific_JJ Marxism_NN1 places_NN2 so_RG much_DA1 faith_NN1 ,_, be_VBI undialectical_JJ enough_RR to_TO produce_VVI Stalinism_NN1 from_II the_AT October_NPM1 Revolution_NN1 ?_? 
How_RRQ could_VM History_NN1 have_VHI failed_VVN to_TO bring_VVI about_RP an_AT1 end_NN1 to_II history_NN1 ?_? 
Merleau-Ponty_NN1 's_GE response_NN1 was_VBDZ to_TO argue_VVI that_DD1 history_NN1 itself_PPX1 had_VHD shown_VVN Marxist_JJ philosophy_NN1 to_TO have_VHI been_VBN flawed_JJ ;_; such_DA philosophy_NN1 must_VM therefore_RR give_VVI up_RP its_APPGE claim_NN1 to_II truth_NN1 ._. 
Ironically_RR ,_, then_RT ,_, the_AT trajectory_NN1 which_DDQ today_RT produces_VVZ the_AT Marxist_JJ argument_NN1 that_CST poststructuralism_NN1 neglects_VVZ history_NN1 was_VBDZ itself_PPX1 initiated_VVN by_II the_AT claim_NN1 that_CST Marxism_NN1 itself_PPX1 had_VHD been_VBN invalidated_VVN by_II history_NN1 ._. 
In_II this_DD1 context_NN1 ,_, the_AT major_JJ challenge_NN1 for_IF Marxism_NN1 became_VVD how_RRQ to_TO explain_VVI Marxism_NN1 's_VBZ '_GE detour_NN1 '_GE from_II itself_PPX1 ,_, a_AT1 question_NN1 on_II which_DDQ Sartre_NP1 's_GE project_NN1 was_VBDZ to_TO founder_VVI in_II the_AT second_MD volume_NN1 of_IO the_AT Critique_NN1 of_IO Dialectical_JJ Reason_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 was_VBDZ Stalin_NP1 's_GE unfortunate_JJ deviation_NN1 which_DDQ led_VVD to_II the_AT whole_JJ series_NN of_IO attempts_NN2 by_II Western_JJ European_JJ Marxists_NN2 to_II return-to-Marx_NP1 the_AT major_JJ examples_NN2 in_II France_NP1 being_VBG Sartre_NP1 and_CC Althusser_NP1 ,_, and_CC in_II Germany_NP1 the_AT Frankfurt_NP1 School_NN1 ._. 
Merleau-Ponty_NN1 ,_, on_II the_AT other_JJ hand_NN1 ,_, arguing_VVG that_CST only_RR one_MC1 Marxism_NN1 ,_, Stalinism_NN1 ,_, could_VM be_VBI said_VVN to_TO be_VBI the_AT product_NN1 of_IO actual_JJ history_NN1 ,_, rejected_VVD any_DD possibility_NN1 of_IO trying_VVG to_TO define_VVI a_AT1 new_JJ ,_, more_RGR genuine_JJ Marxism_NN1 as_II the_AT return-to-Marxists_NN2 tried_VVD to_TO do_VDI ._. 
According_II21 to_II22 Merleau-Ponty_NN1 ,_, Western_JJ academic_JJ Marxism_NN1 ,_, starting_VVG with_IW Lukcs_NP2 ,_, amounted_VVD only_RR to_II the_AT production_NN1 of_IO '_GE ideas_NN2 without_IW historical_JJ equivalents_NN2 '_GE (_( 204_MC )_) ._. 
He_PPHS1 therefore_RR repudiated_VVD any_DD attempt_NN1 to_TO begin_VVI the_AT painful_JJ separation_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 '_GE authentic_JJ '_GE from_II a_AT1 '_GE false_JJ '_GE ,_, orthodox_JJ or_CC official_JJ Marxism_NN1 ,_, choosing_VVG rather_RR to_TO stress_VVI the_AT ambivalence_NN1 of_IO Marxism_NN1 itself_PPX1 ._. 
For_IF Merleau-Ponty_NN1 no_AT sublation_NN1 could_VM resolve_VVI Marxism_NN1 s_ZZ1 own_VV0 division_NN1 between_II its_APPGE theory_NN1 and_CC the_AT history_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE practice_NN1 ,_, itself_PPX1 ,_, he_PPHS1 argued_VVD ,_, an_AT1 acting_NN1 out_II21 of_II22 its_APPGE theoretical_JJ equivocation_NN1 between_II history_NN1 as_II a_AT1 process_NN1 of_IO natural_JJ necessity_NN1 and_CC history_NN1 as_II the_AT product_NN1 of_IO human_JJ praxis_NN1 ._. 
These_DD2 conflicts_NN2 ,_, he_PPHS1 contended_VVD ,_, although_CS highlighted_VVN in_II the_AT differences_NN2 between_II the_AT Western_JJ Marxism_NN1 of_IO Lukcs_NP2 and_CC the_AT orthodoxy_NN1 of_IO Marxist-Leninism_NP1 ,_, could_VM be_VBI traced_VVN back_RP to_II the_AT work_NN1 of_IO Marx_NP1 himself_PPX1 ._. 
Merleau-Ponty_NN1 's_GE argument_NN1 thus_RR meant_VVD acknowledging_VVG a_AT1 certain_JJ equivocalness_NN1 in_II Marxist_JJ claims_NN2 to_II truth_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ could_VM no_RR21 longer_RR22 claim_VVI exemption_NN1 from_II critical_JJ examination_NN1 ,_, and_CC led_VVD inevitably_RR ,_, therefore_RR ,_, to_II an_AT1 early_JJ form_NN1 of_IO what_DDQ ,_, even_RR then_RT ,_, was_VBDZ characterized_VVN as_58 '_GE post-Marxism_NN1 '_GE ._. 
Merleau-ponty_NN1 ,_, whose_DDQGE anticipations_NN2 of_IO later_JJR post-Marxists_NN2 such_II21 as_II22 Foucault_NP1 and_CC Lyotard_NP1 are_VBR readily_RR apparent_JJ ,_, therefore_RR rejected_VVN not_XX the_AT dialectic_NN1 as_II such_DA ,_, nor_CC history_NN1 ,_, but_CCB the_AT closed_JJ dialectic_NN1 as_II an_AT1 autonomous_JJ principle_NN1 that_CST was_VBDZ supposed_JJ to_TO produce_VVI the_AT grand_JJ narrative_NN1 of_IO History_NN1 :_: The_AT illusion_NN1 was_VBDZ only_RR to_II precipitate_NN1 into_II a_AT1 historical_JJ fact_NN1 the_AT proletariat_NN1 's_GE birth_NN1 and_CC growth_NN1 history_NN1 's_GE total_JJ meaning_NN1 ,_, to_TO believe_VVI that_DD1 history_NN1 itself_PPX1 organized_VVD its_APPGE own_DA recovery_NN1 ,_, that_CST the_AT proletariat_NN1 's_GE power_NN1 would_VM be_VBI its_APPGE own_DA suppression_NN1 ,_, the_AT negation_NN1 of_IO the_AT negation._NNU (_( 205_MC )_) In_II a_AT1 provocative_JJ comparison_NN1 of_IO the_AT failures_NN2 of_IO the_AT French_NN1 and_CC Russian_JJ revolutions_NN2 ,_, he_PPHS1 argued_VVD that_CST the_AT problem_NN1 stemmed_VVD from_II the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST no_AT class_NN1 ,_, whether_CSW proletarian_JJ or_CC bourgeoisie_NN1 ,_, can_VM become_VVI the_AT ruling_JJ class_NN1 without_IW taking_VVG upon_II itself_PPX1 something_PN1 of_IO the_AT historical_JJ role_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 ruling_JJ class_NN1 especially_RR if_CS at_II the_AT same_DA time_NNT1 it_PPH1 also_RR considers_VVZ that_CST ,_, history_NN1 carries_VVZ within_II itself_PPX1 its_APPGE own_DA cure'_NN1 :_: To_TO assume_VVI that_CST the_AT proletariat_NN1 will_VM be_VBI able_JK to_TO defend_VVI its_APPGE dictatorship_NN1 against_II entanglement_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO assume_VVI in_II history_NN1 itself_PPX1 a_AT1 substantial_JJ and_CC given_JJ principle_NN1 which_DDQ would_VM drive_VVI ambiguity_NN1 from_II it_PPH1 ,_, sum_VV0 it_PPH1 up_RP ,_, totalise_VV0 it_PPH1 ,_, and_CC close_VV0 it._NNU (_( 221_MC )_) Instead_RR ,_, Merleau-Ponty_NN1 proposed_VVD an_AT1 open_JJ dialectic_NN1 which_DDQ would_VM concede_VVI Marxism_NN1 's_GE equivocalness_NN1 ,_, and_CC give_VVI up_RP the_AT claim_NN1 to_II the_AT dialectical_JJ logic_NN1 of_IO History_NN1 as_II a_AT1 process_NN1 of_IO objective_JJ truth_NN1 ._. 
Or_CC to_TO put_VVI it_PPH1 another_DD1 way_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 maintained_VVD that_DD1 Marxism_NN1 can_VM only_RR constitute_VVI its_APPGE totality_NN1 through_II its_APPGE perpetual_JJ detours_NN2 from_II itself_PPX1 ._. 
Sartre_NP1 's_GE extravagances_NN2 Thus_RR ,_, the_AT world_NN1 and_CC man_NN1 reveal_VV0 themselves_PPX2 by_II undertakings_NN2 ._. 
And_CC all_DB the_AT undertakings_NN2 we_PPIS2 might_VM speak_VVI of_IO reduce_VV0 themselves_PPX2 to_II a_AT1 single_JJ one_PN1 ,_, that_DD1 of_IO making_VVG history_NN1 ._. 
Jean-Paul_NP1 Sartre_NP1 Sartre_NP1 took_VVD the_AT opposite_JJ course_NN1 to_II Merleau-Ponty_NN1 and_CC sought_VVD instead_RR to_TO define_VVI a_AT1 new_JJ authentic_JJ Marxism_NN1 ._. 
His_APPGE project_NN1 in_II the_AT Critique_NN1 of_IO Dialectical_JJ Reason_NN1 (_( 1960_MC )_) amounted_VVD to_II a_AT1 philosophical_JJ defence_NN1 of_IO Marxism_NN1 and_CC its_APPGE dialectic_NN1 through_II a_AT1 reassertion_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE claim_NN1 to_TO be_VBI the_AT only_JJ valid_JJ interpretation_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ,_, '_GE the_AT untranscendable_JJ philosophy_NN1 for_IF our_APPGE time_NNT1 '_GE ._. 
However_RR ,_, Sartre_NP1 was_VBDZ no_AT more_RGR prepared_JJ than_CSN Merleau-ponty_JJ to_TO return_VVI to_II what_DDQ he_PPHS1 characterized_VVD as_RG Marxist_JJ organicism_NN1 ,_, in_II which_DDQ the_AT laws_NN2 of_IO history_NN1 unfold_VV0 according_II21 to_II22 their_APPGE own_DA autonomous_JJ momentum_NN1 ._. 
Not_XX wishing_VVG to_TO propose_VVI History_NN1 as_II a_AT1 transcendent_JJ law_NN1 outside_II the_AT human_NN1 ,_, Sartre_NP1 was_VBDZ careful_JJ to_TO distinguish_VVI his_APPGE claims_NN2 from_II Engels_NP2 '_GE validation_NN1 of_IO the_AT dialectic_NN1 as_II the_AT law_NN1 of_IO nature_NN1 ._. 
He_PPHS1 sought_VVD instead_RR to_TO prove_VVI that_DD1 history_NN1 achieves_VVZ its_APPGE course_NN1 and_CC its_APPGE meaning_NN1 from_II the_AT actions_NN2 of_IO men_NN2 ,_, even_CS21 if_CS22 men_NN2 are_VBR also_RR simultaneously_RR the_AT products_NN2 of_IO history_NN1 ._. 
Merleau-ponty_NN1 had_VHD accused_VVN the_AT existentialist_JJ Sartre_NP1 of_IO denying_VVG history_NN1 and_CC trying_VVG to_TO hold_VVI everything_PN1 together_RL instead_RR '_GE only_RR by_II the_AT hopeless_JJ heroism_NN1 of_IO the_AT I_ZZ1 '_GE ._. 
Sartre_NP1 therefore_RR tried_VVD to_TO show_VVI that_CST the_AT two_MC were_VBDR not_XX opposed_VVN :_: arguing_VVG that_CST the_AT dialectic_NN1 is_VBZ produced_VVN by_II human_JJ subjectivity_NN1 rather_II21 than_II22 inscribed_JJ within_II history_NN1 itself_PPX1 ,_, at_II the_AT same_DA time_NNT1 he_PPHS1 also_RR asserted_VVD the_AT truth_NN1 of_IO the_AT Marxist_JJ account_NN1 of_IO there_EX being_VBG one_MC1 history_NN1 with_IW a_AT1 single_JJ meaning_NN1 a_AT1 history_NN1 ,_, that_REX21 is_REX22 ,_, in_II which_DDQ all_DB differences_NN2 return_VV0 as_II the_AT same_DA ._. 
Everything_PN1 ,_, therefore_RR ,_, hinged_VVN on_II Sartre_NP1 's_GE ability_NN1 to_TO substantiate_VVI the_AT inter-dependence_NN1 of_IO these_DD2 two_MC claims_NN2 ._. 
'_" There_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 crisis_NN1 in_II Marxism_NN1 '_GE ,_, Sartre_NP1 announced_VVD at_II the_AT beginning_NN1 of_IO the_AT Critique_NN1 ;_; this_DD1 crisis_NN1 ,_, not_XX the_AT first_MD and_CC not_XX to_TO be_VBI the_AT last_MD ,_, Sartre_NP1 characterized_VVD as_II the_AT result_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 paradox_NN1 in_II which_DDQ historical_JJ materialism_NN1 had_VHD become_VVN '_GE at_II one_MC1 and_CC the_AT same_DA time_NNT1 ,_, the_AT only_JJ truth_NN1 of_IO History_NN1 and_CC a_AT1 total_JJ indetermination_NN1 of_IO the_AT Truth_NN1 '_GE (_( I_ZZ1 ,_, 19_MC )_) ._. 
Today_RT we_PPIS2 might_VM say_VVI that_CST it_PPH1 had_VHD been_VBN shown_VVN to_TO be_VBI different_JJ from_II itself_PPX1 ._. 
This_DD1 was_VBDZ the_AT aporia_NN1 detected_VVN by_II Merleau-Ponty_NN1 :_: but_CCB rather_CS21 than_CS22 question_VVI Marxism_NN1 's_GE truth_NN1 ,_, Sartre_NP1 sought_VVD to_TO remove_VVI its_APPGE indetermination_NN1 ._. 
He_PPHS1 argued_VVD that_CST though_CS historical_JJ materialism_NN1 had_VHD satisfactorily_RR explained_VVN the_AT forms_NN2 and_CC conditions_NN2 of_IO human_JJ reality_NN1 it_PPH1 had_VHD never_RR established_VVN theoretically_RR the_AT validity_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE own_DA existence_NN1 ,_, never_RR shown_VVN how_RRQ it_PPH1 constituted_VVD not_XX just_RR the_AT substance_NN1 of_IO reality_NN1 but_CCB its_APPGE logical_JJ form_NN1 as_RR21 well_RR22 ._. 
In_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO prove_VVI the_AT truth_NN1 of_IO History_NN1 's_GE prospective_JJ totalization_NN1 into_II one_MC1 meaning_NN1 ,_, therefore_RR ,_, Sartre_NP1 's_GE initial_JJ philosophical_JJ task_NN1 was_VBDZ to_II ground_NN1 his_APPGE argument_NN1 epistemologically_RR by_II proving_VVG the_AT legitimacy_NN1 of_IO the_AT dialectic_NN1 itself_PPX1 ,_, thus_RR demonstrating_VVG not_XX only_RR that_DD1 history_NN1 was_VBDZ dialectically_RR intelligible_JJ but_CCB also_RR why_RRQ it_PPH1 necessarily_RR should_VM be_VBI so_RR ._. 
'_GE The_AT dialectic_NN1 '_GE ,_, according_II21 to_II22 Sartre_NP1 ,_, '_GE is_VBZ both_RR a_AT1 method_NN1 and_CC a_AT1 movement_NN1 in_II the_AT object_NN1 '_GE (_( I_ZZ1 ,_, 20_MC )_) :_: Marxism_NN1 asserts_VVZ simultaneously_RR that_CST both_DB2 the_AT process_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 and_CC the_AT structure_NN1 of_IO the_AT real_JJ are_VBR dialectical_JJ ,_, but_CCB it_PPH1 has_VHZ never_RR proved_VVN the_AT former_DA basing_VVG its_APPGE claim_NN1 to_II truth_NN1 instead_RR on_II the_AT '_GE dogmatic_JJ dialectic_NN1 ,_, of_IO natural_JJ science_NN1 ._. 
Accordingly_RR ,_, much_DA1 of_IO Volume_NN1 I_MC1 of_IO the_AT Critique_NN1 is_VBZ taken_VVN up_RP with_IW the_AT attempt_NN1 to_TO prove_VVI the_AT dialectic_NN1 a_JJ21 priori_JJ22 as_II the_AT universal_JJ method_NN1 and_CC the_AT law_NN1 of_IO anthropology_NN1 ,_, superseding_VVG that_DD1 which_DDQ Kant_NP1 had_VHD provided_VVN for_IF analytical_JJ reason_NN1 ._. 
Volume_NN1 Two_MC ,_, Sartre_NP1 announces_VVZ ,_, will_VM then_RT prove_VVI '_GE the_AT Truth_NN1 of_IO History_NN1 '_GE (_( I_ZZ1 ,_, 52_MC )_) :_: it_PPH1 will_VM attempt_VVI to_TO establish_VVI that_CST there_EX is_VBZ one_MC1 human_JJ history_NN1 ,_, with_IW one_MC1 truth_NN1 and_CC one_MC1 intelligibility_NN1 not_XX by_II considering_VVG the_AT material_NN1 content_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 history_NN1 ,_, but_CCB by_II demonstrating_VVG that_CST a_AT1 practical_JJ multiplicity_NN1 ,_, whatever_DDQV it_PPH1 may_VM be_VBI ,_, must_VM unceasingly_RR totalise_VVI itself_PPX1 through_II interiorizing_VVG its_APPGE multiplicity_NN1 at_II all_DB levels_NN2 ._. 
(_( I_ZZ1 ,_, 69_MC )_) The_AT point_NN1 ,_, therefore_RR ,_, is_VBZ to_TO validate_VVI Marxism_NN1 ,_, to_TO show_VVI that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX simply_RR a_AT1 method_NN1 of_IO interpretation_NN1 ,_, nor_CC even_RR that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ the_AT best_JJT method_NN1 of_IO interpretation_NN1 that_CST can_VM most_RGT successfully_RR account_VVI for_IF the_AT facts_NN2 and_CC the_AT course_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ,_, but_CCB to_TO prove_VVI a_JJ21 priori_JJ22 that_CST history_NN1 works_VVZ according_II21 to_II22 dialectical_JJ structures_NN2 ,_, and_CC to_TO demonstrate_VVI '_GE the_AT moments_NN2 of_IO their_APPGE inter-relations_NN2 ,_, the_AT ever_RR vaster_JJR and_CC more_RGR complex_JJ movement_NN1 which_DDQ totalises_VVZ them_PPHO2 and_CC ,_, finally_RR ,_, the_AT very_JJ direction_NN1 of_IO the_AT totalization_NN1 ,_, that_REX41 is_REX42 to_REX43 say_REX44 ,_, the_AT '_GE meaning_NN1 of_IO History_NN1 '_GE and_CC its_APPGE Truth_NN1 ,_, (_( I_ZZ1 ,_, 69_MC )_) ._. 
Had_VHD he_PPHS1 succeeded_VVN ,_, Sartre_NP1 would_VM have_VHI established_VVN dialectical_JJ reason_NN1 as_CSA successfully_RR for_IF the_AT human_JJ sciences_NN2 as_CSA Kant_NP1 had_VHD established_VVN analytical_JJ reason_NN1 for_IF natural_JJ science_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB he_PPHS1 was_VBDZ unable_JK to_TO do_VDI it_PPH1 ._. 
The_AT indetermination_NN1 that_CST he_PPHS1 sought_VVD to_TO banish_VVI increasingly_RR returned_VVN to_TO haunt_VVI him_PPHO1 ;_; he_PPHS1 could_VM never_RR demonstrate_VVI how_RRQ the_AT unceasing_JJ totalization_NN1 of_IO multiplicity_NN1 would_VM ever_RR reach_VVI its_APPGE promised_JJ moment_NN1 of_IO finality_NN1 ._. 
Sartre_NP1 's_GE claim_NN1 for_IF the_AT continued_JJ validity_NN1 of_IO Marxism_NN1 as_II a_AT1 method_NN1 of_IO understanding_VVG necessarily_RR meant_VVD that_CST he_PPHS1 had_VHD to_TO respond_VVI to_II the_AT problem_NN1 of_IO Stalinism_NN1 ._. 
His_PPGE was_VBDZ the_AT first_MD attempt_NN1 to_TO explain_VVI Stalinism_NN1 as_II an_AT1 aberration_NN1 through_II the_AT forms_NN2 of_IO Marxist_JJ analysis_NN1 itself_PPX1 ._. 
Rather_CS21 than_CS22 reject_VVI Marxism_NN1 on_II the_AT grounds_NN2 that_CST it_PPH1 had_VHD been_VBN disproved_VVN by_II history_NN1 ,_, as_CSA Merleau-ponty_NN1 had_VHD done_VDN ,_, he_PPHS1 sought_VVD to_TO account_VVI for_IF Stalinism_NN1 through_II a_AT1 dialectical_JJ analysis_NN1 of_IO the_AT specific_JJ history_NN1 of_IO the_AT Soviet_JJ Union_NN1 since_CS the_AT Revolution_NN1 :_: theory_NN1 and_CC practice_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 argued_VVD ,_, had_VHD become_VVN separated_VVN with_IW the_AT result_NN1 that_CST the_AT former_DA had_VHD become_VVN '_GE sclerosed_JJ '_GE while_CS the_AT latter_DA had_VHD become_VVN '_GE blind_NN1 '_GE and_CC '_GE unprincipled_JJ '_GE (_( I_ZZ1 ,_, 50_MC )_) ._. 
According_II21 to_II22 Sartre_NP1 ,_, if_CS the_AT dialectic_NN1 had_VHD become_VVN blocked_VVN ,_, an_AT1 understanding_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE detour_NN1 could_VM nevertheless_RR only_RR be_VBI achieved_VVN through_II the_AT use_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 dialectical_JJ logic_NN1 ._. 
He_PPHS1 therefore_RR sought_VVD to_TO prove_VVI both_RR that_CST the_AT structures_NN2 of_IO history_NN1 were_VBDR necessarily_RR dialectical_JJ and_CC that_CST the_AT course_NN1 of_IO actual_JJ history_NN1 could_VM be_VBI shown_VVN to_TO be_VBI so_RR ._. 
But_CCB in_II attempting_VVG to_TO discover_VVI why_RRQ the_AT Russian_JJ Revolution_NN1 followed_VVD the_AT path_NN1 it_PPH1 did_VDD ,_, he_PPHS1 found_VVD himself_PPX1 arriving_VVG at_II the_AT conclusion_NN1 that_CST ,_, far_RR from_II being_VBG a_AT1 '_GE false_JJ '_GE deviation_NN1 ,_, in_II the_AT circumstances_NN2 of_IO history_NN1 Stalinism_NN1 had_VHD been_VBN necessary_JJ ._. 
Having_VHG set_VVN out_RP to_TO demonstrate_VVI how_RRQ ,_, through_II its_APPGE understanding_NN1 of_IO the_AT structure_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ,_, Marxism_NN1 was_VBDZ in_II a_AT1 position_NN1 to_TO forecast_VVI the_AT future_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 came_VVD to_II the_AT conclusion_NN1 that_CST there_EX was_VBDZ no_AT guarantee_NN1 that_CST history_NN1 could_VM promise_VVI anything_PN1 better_RRR that_DD1 what_DDQ had_VHD just_RR passed_VVN ._. 
II_MC THE_AT FIRST_MD CRITIQUE_NN1 Unity_NN1 had_VHD been_VBN easy_JJ during_II the_AT Resistance_NN1 ,_, because_CS relationships_NN2 were_VBDR almost_RR always_RR man-to-man_JJ ._. 
Over_RP against_II the_AT German_JJ army_NN1 or_CC the_AT Vichy_NP1 government_NN1 ,_, where_CS social_JJ generality_NN1 ruled_VVD ,_, as_CSA it_PPH1 does_VDZ in_II all_DB machines_NN2 of_IO state_NN1 ,_, the_AT Resistance_NN1 offered_VVD the_AT rare_JJ phenomenon_NN1 of_IO historical_JJ action_NN1 which_DDQ remained_VVD personal_JJ ._. 
The_AT psychological_JJ and_CC moral_JJ elements_NN2 of_IO political_JJ action_NN1 were_VBDR almost_RR the_AT only_JJ ones_NN2 to_TO appear_VVI here_RL ,_, which_DDQ is_VBZ why_RRQ intellectuals_NN2 least_RGT inclined_JJ to_II politics_NN1 were_VBDR to_TO be_VBI seen_VVN in_II the_AT Resistance_NN1 ._. 
The_AT Resistance_NN1 was_VBDZ a_AT1 unique_JJ experience_NN1 for_IF them_PPHO2 ,_, and_CC they_PPHS2 wanted_VVD to_TO preserve_VVI its_APPGE experience_NN1 in_II the_AT new_JJ French_JJ politics_NN1 because_CS this_DD1 experience_NN1 broke_VVD away_II21 from_II22 the_AT famous_JJ dilemma_NN1 of_IO being_NN1 and_CC doing_VDG ,_, which_DDQ confronts_VVZ all_DB intellectuals_NN2 in_II the_AT face_NN1 of_IO action_NN1 ...._... 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ only_RR too_RG obvious_JJ that_CST this_DD1 balance_NN1 between_II action_NN1 and_CC personal_JJ life_NN1 was_VBDZ intimately_RR bound_VVN up_RP with_IW the_AT conditions_NN2 of_IO clandestine_JJ action_NN1 and_CC could_VM not_XX survive_VVI it_PPH1 ._. 
And_CC in_II this_DD1 sense_NN1 it_PPH1 must_VM be_VBI said_VVN that_CST the_AT Resistance_NN1 experience_NN1 ,_, by_II making_VVG us_PPIO2 believe_VVI that_DD1 politics_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 relationship_NN1 between_II man_NN1 and_CC man_NN1 or_CC between_II consciousnesses_NN2 ,_, fostered_VVD our_APPGE illusions_NN2 of_IO 1939_MC and_CC masked_VVD the_AT truth_NN1 of_IO the_AT incredible_JJ power_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 which_DDQ the_AT Occupation_NN1 taught_VVD us_PPIO2 in_II another_DD1 connection_NN1 ._. 
If_CS by_II 1945_MC Merleau-ponty_NN1 had_VHD here_RL already_RR indicated_VVN the_AT historical_JJ basis_NN1 for_IF what_DDQ was_VBDZ to_TO become_VVI Sartre_NP1 's_GE project_NN1 in_II the_AT Critique_NN1 ,_, the_AT theoretical_JJ problem_NN1 that_CST followed_VVD was_VBDZ how_RRQ to_TO unite_VVI orthodox_JJ Marxist_JJ concepts_NN2 of_IO economic_JJ determinism_NN1 and_CC historical_JJ necessity_NN1 with_IW the_AT individualism_NN1 of_IO Sartre_NP1 's_GE earlier_JJR work_NN1 ,_, that_DD1 is_VBZ the_AT existentialist_JJ notion_NN1 of_IO the_AT authentic_JJ self_NN1 and_CC the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO choosing_VVG one_PN1 's_GE own_DA freedom_NN1 :_: how_RRQ to_TO relocate_VVI human_JJ practice_NN1 within_II historical_JJ determinism_NN1 ,_, to_TO reconcile_VVI the_AT individual_NN1 with_IW the_AT social_JJ ,_, the_AT idea_NN1 of_IO agency_NN1 with_IW that_DD1 of_IO necessity_NN1 ,_, or_CC freedom_NN1 with_IW history_NN1 ?_? 
For_IF Marxist_JJ or_CC Hegelian_JJ thought_NN1 ,_, such_DA an_AT1 age-old_JJ contradiction_NN1 ought_VMK to_TO be_VBI resolvable_JJ through_II the_AT operations_NN2 of_IO dialectical_JJ logic_NN1 ._. 
Citing_VVG Marx_NP1 's_GE famous_JJ remark_NN1 in_II The_AT Eighteenth_MD Brumaire_NN1 ,_, '_GE Men_NN2 make_VV0 their_APPGE own_DA History_NN1 ..._... but_CCB under_II circumstances_NN2 ..._... given_VVN and_CC transmitted_VVN from_II the_AT past_NN1 '_GE ,_, Sartre_NP1 suggested_VVD that_CST this_DD1 implied_JJ '_GE the_AT permanent_JJ and_CC dialectical_JJ unity_NN1 of_IO freedom_NN1 and_CC necessity_NN1 ,_, (_( I_ZZ1 ,_, 35_MC )_) ._. 
Accordingly_RR ,_, he_PPHS1 attempted_VVD to_TO shift_VVI Marxism_NN1 away_II21 from_II22 orthodox_JJ theories_NN2 of_IO an_AT1 absolute_JJ determinism_NN1 towards_II the_AT primacy_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 concept_NN1 of_IO '_GE History_NN1 '_GE which_DDQ ,_, while_CS still_RR a_AT1 totality_NN1 as_CSA it_PPH1 had_VHD been_VBN for_IF Lukcs_NN2 ,_, a_AT1 process_NN1 with_IW a_AT1 determinate_JJ meaning_NN1 and_CC end_NN1 ,_, could_VM also_RR include_VVI a_AT1 concept_NN1 of_IO human_JJ agency_NN1 and_CC thus_RR articulate_VV0 the_AT individual_NN1 with_IW the_AT social_JJ ,_, freedom_NN1 with_IW determinism_NN1 ._. 
Today_RT ,_, Sartre_NP1 's_GE voluntarism_NN1 is_VBZ to_II some_DD extent_NN1 returning_VVG to_TO favour_VVI as_II the_AT result_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 desire_NN1 to_TO retrieve_VVI the_AT categories_NN2 of_IO agency_NN1 and_CC the_AT subject_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ goes_VVZ together_RL with_IW the_AT wish_NN1 to_TO get_VVI out_II21 of_II22 the_AT apparently_RR totalizing_VVG systems_NN2 of_IO Adorno_NP1 ,_, Althusser_NP1 or_CC Foucault_NP1 ._. 
Sartre_NP1 's_GE stress_NN1 on_II the_AT role_NN1 of_IO the_AT subject_NN1 also_RR finds_VVZ approval_NN1 because_CS many_DA2 of_IO those_DD2 no_RR21 longer_RR22 prepared_VVN to_TO argue_VVI for_IF a_AT1 general_JJ theory_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 as_II the_AT progress_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 single_JJ narrative_NN1 of_IO class-struggle_NN1 ,_, have_VH0 begun_VVN to_TO argue_VVI instead_RR for_IF a_AT1 return_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE correlative_JJ ,_, the_AT subject_NN1 ,_, almost_RR as_CS21 if_CS22 it_PPH1 was_VBDZ the_AT next_MD best_JJT thing_NN1 in_II the_AT absence_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 itself_PPX1 ._. 
But_CCB it_PPH1 still_RR leaves_VVZ us_PPIO2 with_IW the_AT crucial_JJ problem_NN1 that_CST Sartre_NP1 had_VHD to_TO solve_VVI ,_, namely_REX how_RRQ to_TO link_VVI human_JJ consciousness_NN1 with_IW the_AT processes_NN2 of_IO history_NN1 so_CS21 that_CS22 the_AT former_DA can_VM be_VBI said_VVN to_TO be_VBI the_AT agent_NN1 of_IO the_AT latter_DA ._. 
How_RRQ could_VM this_DD1 take_VVI place_NN1 ?_? 
As_CSA Sartre_NP1 had_VHD put_VVN it_PPH1 in_II What_DDQ is_VBZ Literature_NN1 ?_? :_: 
'_GE Never_RR has_VHZ homo_NN1 faber_NN1 better_RRR understood_VVN that_CST he_PPHS1 has_VHZ made_VVN history_NN1 and_CC never_RR has_VHZ he_PPHS1 felt_VVN so_RG powerless_JJ before_II history_NN1 '_GE ._. 
How_RRQ can_VM man_NN1 make_VV0 history_NN1 if_CS at_II the_AT same_DA time_NNT1 it_PPH1 is_VBZ history_NN1 which_DDQ makes_VVZ him_PPHO1 ?_? 
Sartre_NP1 considered_VVD that_CST orthodox_JJ dialectical_JJ materialism_NN1 takes_VVZ the_AT easy_JJ way_NN1 out_RP by_II merely_RR eliminating_VVG the_AT first_MD in_II31 favour_II32 of_II33 the_AT second_NNT1 ,_, making_VVG man_NN1 a_AT1 passive_JJ product_NN1 entirely_RR determined_VVN by_II economic_JJ circumstances_NN2 ._. 
Unwilling_JJ to_TO follow_VVI Merleau-Ponty_NN1 by_II dropping_VVG the_AT second_NNT1 in_II31 favour_II32 of_II33 the_AT first_MD ,_, Sartre_NP1 argued_VVD that_CST it_PPH1 was_VBDZ possible_JJ for_IF man_NN1 to_TO be_VBI both_RR at_RR21 once_RR22 through_II the_AT movement_NN1 of_IO praxis_NN1 ,_, that_DD1 is_VBZ intentional_JJ actions_NN2 which_DDQ produce_VV0 material_NN1 effects_NN2 ._. 
Its_APPGE corollary_NN1 ,_, whereby_RRQ praxis_NN1 becomes_VVZ determining_JJ history_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 called_VVD the_AT '_GE practico-inert_JJ '_GE ,_, by_II which_DDQ he_PPHS1 meant_VVD the_AT material_NN1 circumstances_NN2 that_CST have_VH0 themselves_PPX2 been_VBN created_VVN by_II previous_JJ praxes_NN2 and_CC which_DDQ form_VV0 the_AT conditions_NN2 for_IF new_JJ praxis_NN1 ._. 
The_AT individual_NN1 is_VBZ thus_RR both_RR totalizer_NN1 and_CC totalized_VVD ,_, deftly_RR uniting_JJ freedom_NN1 with_IW necessity_NN1 ._. 
Though_CS this_DD1 neatly_RR solves_VVZ the_AT problem_NN1 of_IO how_RRQ man_NN1 can_VM make_VVI history_NN1 while_CS at_II the_AT same_DA time_NNT1 history_NN1 makes_VVZ him_PPHO1 ,_, it_PPH1 does_VDZ not_XX answer_VVI the_AT larger_JJR question_NN1 of_IO how_RRQ a_AT1 multiplicity_NN1 of_IO the_AT products_NN2 of_IO individual_JJ acts_NN2 ,_, '_GE totalizations_NN2 '_GE ,_, can_VM themselves_PPX2 be_VBI totalized_VVN into_II the_AT overall_JJ totalization_NN1 required_VVN by_II the_AT logic_NN1 of_IO dialectical_JJ rationality_NN1 rather_II21 than_II22 being_VBG the_AT arbitrary_JJ ,_, blind_JJ and_CC self-cancelling_JJ movements_NN2 of_IO ,_, say_VV0 ,_, Hardy_NP1 's_GE immanent_JJ will_NN1 ._. 
Sartre_NP1 's_GE fundamental_JJ thesis_NN1 ,_, that_DD1 '_VBZ History_NN1 continually_RR effects_VVZ totalisations_NN2 of_IO totalisations_NN2 '_GE (_( I_ZZ1 ,_, 15_MC )_) ,_, does_VDZ not_XX in_II itself_PPX1 answer_VV0 what_DDQ Ronald_NP1 Aronson_NP1 has_VHZ rightly_RR characterized_VVN as_II the_AT question_NN1 for_IF Sartre_NP1 :_: '_" how_RRQ do_VD0 separate_VVI ,_, antagonistic_JJ actions_NN2 yield_VV0 a_AT1 history_NN1 ;_; how_RRQ do_VD0 individual_JJ totalizations_NN2 lead_VV0 to_II Totalization_NN1 (_( and_CC also_RR progress_VV0 ,_, the_AT direction_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ,_, its_APPGE truth_NN1 and_CC its_APPGE meaning_NN1 )_) ?_? 
'_" For_IF the_AT whole_JJ basis_NN1 of_IO Sartre_NP1 's_GE argument_NN1 is_VBZ that_CST the_AT dialectic_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 metaphysical_JJ law_NN1 ,_, '_" some_DD powerful_JJ unitary_JJ force_NN1 revealing_VVG itself_PPX1 behind_II History_NN1 like_II the_AT will_NN1 of_IO God_NP1 '_GE ,_, but_CCB the_AT continuously_RR produced_VVN effect_NN1 of_IO individual_JJ conflicts_NN2 ;_; each_DD1 action_NN1 is_VBZ in_II its_APPGE turn_NN1 subsumed_VVN as_II a_AT1 part_NN1 of_IO the_AT whole_NN1 in_II an_AT1 ever_RR broader_JJR ,_, developing_JJ totalization_NN1 (_( I_ZZ1 ,_, 37_MC )_) ._. 
What_DDQ Sartre_NP1 needs_VVZ to_TO demonstrate_VVI ,_, therefore_RR ,_, is_VBZ that_DD1 if_CS the_AT law_NN1 of_IO the_AT dialectic_NN1 works_VVZ from_II the_AT individual_JJ level_NN1 ,_, overall_RR it_PPH1 produces_VVZ nothing_PN1 less_DAR than_CSN the_AT intelligibility_NN1 or_CC the_AT meaning_NN1 of_IO History_NN1 as_II such_DA :_: The_AT dialectic_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT law_NN1 of_IO totalization_NN1 which_DDQ creates_VVZ several_DA2 collectivities_NN2 ,_, several_DA2 societies_NN2 ,_, and_CC one_MC1 history_NN1 realities_NN2 ,_, that_REX21 is_REX22 ,_, which_DDQ impose_VV0 themselves_PPX2 on_II individuals_NN2 ;_; but_CCB at_II the_AT same_DA time_NNT1 it_PPH1 must_VM be_VBI woven_VVN out_II21 of_II22 millions_NNO2 of_IO individual_JJ actions_NN2 ._. 
We_PPIS2 must_VM show_VVI that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ possible_JJ for_IF it_PPH1 to_TO be_VBI both_RR a_AT1 resultant_JJ ..._... and_CC a_AT1 totalizing_JJ force_NN1 ..._... how_RRQ it_PPH1 can_VM continually_RR bring_VVI about_RP the_AT unity_NN1 of_IO dispersive_JJ profusion_NN1 and_CC integration_NN1 ._. 
(_( I_ZZ1 ,_, 36_MC )_) But_CCB what_DDQ produces_VVZ the_AT overall_JJ direction_NN1 of_IO History_NN1 ?_? 
How_RRQ does_VDZ it_PPH1 '_VBZ continually_RR bring_VV0 about_RP the_AT unity_NN1 of_IO dispersive_JJ profusion_NN1 and_CC integration_NN1 '_GE ?_? 
Sartre_NP1 does_VDZ not_XX attempt_VVI to_TO answer_VVI this_DD1 question_NN1 ,_, shifting_VVG rather_RR to_II the_AT notion_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 lack_NN1 of_IO self-consciousness_NN1 ._. 
The_AT dialectic_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT law_NN1 that_CST remains_VVZ hidden_VVN ._. 
At_II the_AT moment_NN1 ,_, '_GE history_NN1 is_VBZ made_VVN without_IW being_VBG known_VVN (_( l'histoire_VV0 se_NN1 fait_NN1 sans_FW se_NN1 connitre_NN1 )_) '_GE history_NN1 constitutes_VVZ ,_, we_PPIS2 might_VM say_VVI today_RT ,_, a_AT1 political_JJ unconscious_JJ ._. 
'_GE Marxism_NN1 '_GE ,_, on_II the_AT other_JJ hand_NN1 ,_, Sartre_NP1 claims_VVZ ,_, '_GE is_VBZ History_NN1 itself_PPX1 becoming_VVG conscious_JJ of_IO itself_PPX1 '_GE (_( I_ZZ1 ,_, 40_MC )_) :_: as_II21 for_II22 Lukcs_NP2 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ by_II becoming_VVG conscious_JJ of_IO itself_PPX1 as_II the_AT subject_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 that_CST the_AT working_JJ class_NN1 will_VM understand_VVI history_NN1 's_GE meaning_NN1 and_CC so_RR recognize_VV0 itself_PPX1 as_II the_AT meaning_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ._. 
While_CS he_PPHS1 suggests_VVZ in_II apocalyptic_JJ tones_NN2 in_II The_AT Problem_NN1 of_IO Method_NN1 that_CST this_DD1 process_NN1 of_IO self-consciousness_NN1 is_VBZ at_II last_MD beginning_NN1 to_TO take_VVI place_NN1 ,_, and_CC that_DD1 civil_JJ ,_, foreign_JJ and_CC colonial_JJ wars_NN2 are_VBR becoming_VVG apparent_JJ as_CSA different_JJ forms_NN2 of_IO a_AT1 single_JJ class_NN1 struggle_NN1 ,_, Sartre_NP1 also_RR admits_VVZ that_CST the_AT divorce_NN1 between_II theory_NN1 and_CC praxis_NN1 which_DDQ ensued_VVD under_II Stalinism_NN1 has_VHZ generally_RR prevented_VVN any_DD clear_JJ self-consciousness_NN1 among_II the_AT masses_NN2 ._. 
The_AT '_GE detour_NN1 ,_, of_IO Stalinism_NN1 is_VBZ thus_RR formalized_VVN as_CSA Marxism_NN1 's_GE own_DA descent_NN1 into_II its_APPGE unconscious_JJ ,_, resulting_VVG in_II a_AT1 dream-work_NN1 of_IO heterogeneous_JJ histories_NN2 that_CST have_VH0 eluded_VVN systematization_NN1 and_CC subsumption_NN1 into_II the_AT single_JJ meaning_NN1 of_IO Marxism_NN1 's_GE own_DA reading_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ therefore_RR ,_, Sartre_NP1 argues_VVZ ,_, our_APPGE historical_JJ task_NN1 to_TO make_VVI it_PPH1 known_VVN ,_, promoting_VVG not_XX just_RR the_AT historical_JJ process_NN1 as_II such_DA ,_, but_CCB also_RR the_AT general_JJ recognition_NN1 whereby_RRQ the_AT plurality_NN1 of_IO the_AT meanings_NN2 of_IO individual_JJ histories_NN2 can_VM be_VBI seen_VVN to_TO combine_VVI to_TO make_VVI one_MC1 history_NN1 ,_, with_IW one_PN1 meaning_VVG the_AT '_GE Truth_NN1 of_IO humanity_NN1 '_GE (_( I_ZZ1 ,_, 822_MC )_) ._. 
Sartre_NP1 's_GE account_NN1 thus_RR sets_VVZ up_RP the_AT articulation_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ,_, univocal_JJ meaning_NN1 ,_, and_CC totality_NN1 as_II the_AT indissoluble_JJ set_NN1 of_IO elements_NN2 required_VVN for_IF the_AT validation_NN1 of_IO Marxism_NN1 ,_, necessary_JJ in_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO save_VVI it_PPH1 from_II its_APPGE detour_NN1 from_II itself_PPX1 ._. 
The_AT problem_NN1 ,_, however_RR ,_, remains_VVZ how_RRQ such_DA universals_NN2 are_VBR produced_VVN from_II the_AT multiplicity_NN1 of_IO initiating_VVG individual_JJ praxes_NN2 ._. 
If_CS History_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 history_NN1 of_IO conflict_NN1 ,_, how_RRQ could_VM it_PPH1 be_VBI both_RR one_MC1 and_CC internally_RR diversified_VVN without_IW the_AT inner_JJ moving_JJ principle_NN1 of_IO the_AT dialectic_NN1 ?_? 
How_RRQ can_VM History_NN1 be_VBI a_AT1 unity_NN1 if_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ also_RR conflictual_JJ ,_, if_CS each_DD1 action_NN1 is_VBZ aimed_VVN at_II destroying_VVG the_AT other_JJ and_CC results_NN2 in_II a_AT1 double_JJ negation_NN1 in_II which_DDQ the_AT original_JJ aims_NN2 of_IO each_DD1 action_NN1 have_VH0 been_VBN destroyed_VVN by_II the_AT other_JJ ?_? 
If_CS each_DD1 action_NN1 negates_VVZ the_AT aim_NN1 of_IO the_AT other_JJ ,_, where_RRQ is_VBZ the_AT '_GE unity_NN1 '_GE totalized_JJ in_II the_AT conflict_NN1 ?_? 
How_RRQ does_VDZ History_NN1 constantly_RR totalize_VV0 itself_PPX1 ?_? 
(_( I_ZZ1 ,_, 817_MC 18_MC )_) Sartre_NP1 arrives_VVZ at_II what_DDQ he_PPHS1 calls_NN2 '_GE the_AT real_JJ problem_NN1 of_IO History_NN1 '_GE ,_, that_DD1 is_VBZ how_RRQ there_EX can_VM be_VBI totalization_NN1 without_IW a_AT1 totalizer_NN1 ,_, only_RR at_II the_AT very_JJ end_NN1 of_IO Volume_NN1 I._NP1 It_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX until_CS the_AT next_MD volume_NN1 ,_, however_RR ,_, that_CST he_PPHS1 intends_VVZ to_TO show_VVI how_RGQ individual_JJ actions_NN2 ,_, separate_JJ multiplicities_NN2 ,_, make_VV0 up_RP '_" one_MC1 human_JJ history_NN1 ,_, with_IW one_MC1 truth_NN1 and_CC one_MC1 intelligibility_NN1 '_GE (_( I_ZZ1 ,_, 69_MC )_) ._. 
Throughout_RL ,_, Sartre_NP1 has_VHZ nevertheless_RR taken_VVN it_PPH1 '_" for_IF granted_VVN that_CST such_DA a_AT1 totalisation_NN1 is_VBZ constantly_RR developing_VVG both_RR as_CSA History_NN1 and_CC as_RG historical_JJ Truth_NN1 '_GE (_( I_ZZ1 ,_, 822_MC )_) ._. 
His_APPGE History_NN1 ,_, therefore_RR ,_, is_VBZ always_RR in_II process_NN1 :_: but_CCB its_APPGE teleology_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 final_JJ totalization_NN1 always_RR has_VHZ to_TO be_VBI assumed_VVN ._. 
He_PPHS1 thus_RR asserts_VVZ the_AT Truth_NN1 of_IO History_NN1 while_CS constantly_RR projecting_VVG forwards_RL and_CC deferring_VVG its_APPGE proof_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB when_CS the_AT proof_NN1 comes_VVZ it_PPH1 also_RR turns_VVZ out_RP to_TO rest_VVI on_II the_AT assumption_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ already_RR true_JJ ._. 
III_MC THE_AT SECOND_MD CRITIQUE_NN1 :_: '_" We_PPIS2 are_VBR trying_VVG to_TO establish_VVI the_AT Truth_NN1 of_IO History'_NP1 Sartre_NP1 produces_VVZ a_AT1 persuasive_JJ formulation_NN1 of_IO the_AT relation_NN1 of_IO the_AT individual_NN1 to_II the_AT determining_JJ historical_JJ circumstance_NN1 through_II his_APPGE concepts_NN2 of_IO praxis_NN1 and_CC the_AT practico-inert_JJ ;_; it_PPH1 is_VBZ also_RR obvious_JJ to_II him_PPHO1 how_RRQ the_AT larger_JJR question_NN1 of_IO History_NN1 ought_VMK to_TO be_VBI solved_VVN ._. 
He_PPHS1 asserts_VVZ it_PPH1 often_RR enough_RR :_: '_GE History_NN1 continually_RR effects_VVZ totalisations_NN2 of_IO totalisations_NN2 ,_, (_( I_ZZ1 ,_, 15_MC )_) ._. 
But_CCB in_II Volume_NN1 I_MC1 of_IO the_AT Critique_NN1 ,_, as_CSA we_PPIS2 have_VH0 seen_VVN ,_, he_PPHS1 continually_RR defers_VVZ the_AT demonstration_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE proof_NN1 ._. 
For_IF the_AT '_GE dogmatic_JJ dialectic_NN1 '_GE ,_, as_CSA he_PPHS1 describes_VVZ dialectical_JJ materialism_NN1 ,_, the_AT whole_JJ question_NN1 naturally_RR poses_VVZ no_AT problem_NN1 ,_, for_IF each_DD1 person_NN1 or_CC group_NN1 simply_RR constitutes_VVZ a_AT1 partial_JJ moment_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 already_RR operative_JJ movement_NN1 of_IO totalization_NN1 that_CST produces_VVZ them_PPHO2 and_CC then_RT goes_VVZ beyond_II them_PPHO2 ._. 
But_CCB Sartre_NP1 's_GE dispensing_NN1 with_IW all_DB historicist_NN1 schemas_NN2 creates_VVZ the_AT problem_NN1 of_IO how_RRQ ,_, between_II two_MC autonomous_JJ and_CC contradictory_JJ totalizations_NN2 ,_, there_EX could_VM be_VBI '_" one_MC1 dialectical_JJ intelligibility_NN1 of_IO the_AT ongoing_JJ process_NN1 '_GE (_( II_MC ,_, 13_MC )_) ._. 
He_PPHS1 attempts_VVZ to_TO solve_VVI this_DD1 through_II matching_VVG his_APPGE account_NN1 of_IO contradiction_NN1 with_IW a_AT1 new_JJ concept_NN1 derived_VVN from_II the_AT conjunction_NN1 of_IO work_NN1 and_CC labour_NN1 :_: '_GE anti-labour_NN1 '_GE (_( anti-travail_NN1 )_) ,_, a_AT1 category_NN1 of_IO negation_NN1 ._. 
The_AT products_NN2 of_IO a_AT1 conflict_NN1 ,_, as_II31 well_II32 as_II33 its_APPGE residues_NN2 ,_, may_VM seem_VVI incomprehensible_JJ insofar_CS21 as_CS22 they_PPHS2 differ_VV0 from_II the_AT original_JJ intentions_NN2 of_IO any_DD of_IO the_AT combatants_NN2 ._. 
Nevertheless_RR they_PPHS2 constitute_VV0 the_AT basis_NN1 and_CC conditions_NN2 for_IF further_JJR actions_NN2 and_CC history_NN1 ._. 
Dialectical_JJ reason_NN1 encounters_VVZ such_DA products_NN2 as_CSA undecidables_VVZ :_: aporias_NN2 because_CS they_PPHS2 seem_VV0 to_TO be_VBI at_RR21 once_RR22 the_AT results_NN2 of_IO a_AT1 communal_JJ enterprise_NN1 while_CS at_II the_AT same_DA time_NNT1 bearing_VVG witness_NN1 to_II the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST this_DD1 enterprise_NN1 never_RR existed_VVD except_CS as_II the_AT inhuman_JJ reverse_JJ side_NN1 of_IO two_MC opposed_JJ actions_NN2 in_II which_DDQ each_DD1 aims_VVZ to_TO destroy_VVI the_AT other_JJ ._. 
In_II the_AT dialectical_JJ perspective_NN1 ,_, we_PPIS2 encounter_VV0 these_DD2 objects_NN2 as_CSA productions_NN2 which_DDQ are_VBR human_JJ and_CC provided_VVN with_IW a_AT1 future_NN1 ..._... thus_RR they_PPHS2 seem_VV0 by_II themselves_PPX2 to_TO be_VBI totalizations_NN2 in_II process_NN1 ._. 
(_( II_MC ,_, 20_MC )_) This_DD1 means_VVZ that_DD1 first_MD ,_, they_PPHS2 lead_VV0 to_II unforeseeable_JJ results_NN2 ,_, and_CC second_NNT1 ,_, that_CST the_AT internal_JJ structure_NN1 of_IO social_JJ objects_NN2 contains_58 '_GE the_AT double_JJ negation_NN1 of_IO themselves_PPX2 and_CC of_IO each_DD1 constituent_NN1 part_NN1 by_II the_AT other_NN1 '_GE (_( II_MC ,_, 22_MC )_) ._. 
There_EX is_VBZ ,_, therefore_RR ,_, before_CS any_DD understanding_NN1 of_IO historic_JJ agents_NN2 and_CC movements_NN2 ,_, a_AT1 certain_JJ aporia_NN1 in_II all_DB social_JJ ensembles_NN2 :_: from_II afar_RL they_PPHS2 may_VM appear_VVI whole_NN1 ,_, but_CCB close_RR to_II ,_, they_PPHS2 can_VM be_VBI seen_VVN as_CSA riddled_VVN with_IW holes_NN2 ._. 
This_DD1 increasingly_RR comes_VVZ to_TO resemble_VVI nothing_PN1 so_RR31 much_RR32 as_RR33 Sartre_NP1 's_GE own_DA account_NN1 of_IO History_NN1 ._. 
In_II the_AT context_NN1 of_IO the_AT negativity_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 formulation_NN1 ,_, Sartre_NP1 is_VBZ obliged_VVN to_TO pose_VVI once_RR21 again_RR22 the_AT problem_NN1 of_IO whether_CSW there_EX can_VM be_VBI a_AT1 totalization_NN1 ,_, without_IW any_DD independent_JJ totalizer_NN1 or_CC totalizing_VVG force_NN1 such_II21 as_II22 the_AT dialectic_NN1 ,_, or_CC whether_CSW the_AT structure_NN1 of_IO negation_NN1 that_CST he_PPHS1 has_VHZ described_VVN means_VVZ that_CST ,_, as_II for_IF Adorno_NP1 or_CC Bakhtin_NP1 ,_, history_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX develop_VVI positively_RR but_CCB ,_, rather_RR ,_, negatively_RR ,_, and_CC is_VBZ therefore_RR instead_RR detotalizing_VVG :_: Marxism_NN1 is_VBZ rigorously_RR true_JJ if_CS History_NN1 is_VBZ totalization_NN1 ;_; it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX so_RR any_DD more_DAR if_CS human_JJ history_NN1 decomposes_VVZ into_II a_AT1 plurality_NN1 of_IO particular_JJ histories_NN2 ,_, or_CC if_CS ,_, in_II any_DD case_NN1 ,_, within_II the_AT relationship_NN1 of_IO immanence_NN1 that_CST characterizes_VVZ struggle_NN1 ,_, the_AT negation_NN1 of_IO each_DD1 adversary_NN1 by_II the_AT other_NN1 is_VBZ on_II principle_NN1 detotalizing_VVG ._. 
Certainly_RR ,_, we_PPIS2 have_VH0 neither_RR the_AT design_NN1 nor_CC the_AT actual_JJ possibility_NN1 of_IO showing_VVG here_RL the_AT full_JJ truth_NN1 of_IO dialectical_JJ materialism_NN1 ..._... 
Our_APPGE goal_NN1 is_VBZ solely_RR to_TO establish_VVI whether_CSW ,_, in_II a_AT1 practical_JJ ensemble_NN1 torn_VVN apart_RL by_II antagonism_NN1 (_( whether_CSW there_EX are_VBR multiple_JJ conflicts_NN2 or_CC whether_CSW they_PPHS2 are_VBR reduced_VVN to_II one_MC1 )_) the_AT breaks_NN2 themselves_PPX2 are_VBR totalizing_VVG and_CC carried_VVN along_RP by_II the_AT totalizing_JJ movement_NN1 of_IO the_AT ensemble_NN1 ._. 
(_( II_MC ,_, 25_MC )_) At_II this_DD1 point_NN1 Sartre_NP1 confronts_VVZ the_AT possibility_NN1 that_CST the_AT whole_JJ project_NN1 of_IO the_AT Critique_NN1 ,_, stated_VVD so_RG confidently_RR on_II its_APPGE very_RG first_MD page_NN1 '_GE it_PPH1 must_VM be_VBI proved_VVN that_CST a_AT1 negation_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 negation_NN1 can_VM be_VBI an_AT1 affirmation_NN1 '_GE (_( I_ZZ1 ,_, 15_MC )_) may_VM break_VVI down._NNU perhaps_RR the_AT Truth_NN1 of_IO History_NN1 can_VM not_XX be_VBI proved_VVN ;_; its_APPGE direction_NN1 can_VM not_XX be_VBI discerned_VVN ._. 
Sartre_NP1 's_GE reaction_NN1 to_II the_AT threat_NN1 that_CST the_AT negation_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 negation_NN1 may_VM produce_VVI a_AT1 detotalizing_JJ effect_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO introduce_VVI a_AT1 new_JJ category_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 unifying_JJ force_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 '_GE singularization_NN1 '_GE which_DDQ incarnates_VVZ the_AT universal_JJ :_: '_" If_CSW totalization_NN1 really_RR is_VBZ an_AT1 ongoing_JJ process_NN1 '_GE ,_, he_PPHS1 writes_VVZ ,_, '_" then_RT it_PPH1 operates_VVZ everywhere_RL ._. 
That_DD1 means_VVZ both_RR that_CST there_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 dialectical_JJ meaning_NN1 of_IO the_AT practical_JJ ensemble_NN1 ..._... and_CC that_CST each_DD1 singular_JJ event_NN1 totalizes_VVZ in_II itself_PPX1 the_AT practical_JJ ensemble_NN1 in_II the_AT infinite_JJ richness_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE singularity_NN1 '_GE (_( II_MC ,_, 26_MC )_) ._. 
Unlike_JJ Lukcs_NP2 '_GE insignificant_JJ event_NN1 from_II which_DDQ the_AT universal_JJ is_VBZ precariously_RR drawn_VVN out_RP through_II the_AT narrative_NN1 ,_, Sartre_NP1 's_GE singularity_NN1 works_VVZ synecdochally_RR in_II a_AT1 conventional_JJ antinomy_NN1 with_IW the_AT universal_JJ ,_, the_AT relation_NN1 between_II the_AT two_MC structured_VVN according_II21 to_II22 the_AT familiar_JJ nineteenth-century_JJ model_NN1 of_IO organic_JJ growth_NN1 or_CC process_VV0 in_II which_DDQ each_DD1 singular_JJ event_NN1 makes_VVZ up_RP the_AT whole_JJ while_NNT1 ,_, as_CSA he_PPHS1 puts_VVZ it_PPH1 ,_, '_GE the_AT whole_NN1 is_VBZ entirely_RR present_JJ in_II the_AT part_NN1 as_CSA its_APPGE present_JJ meaning_NN1 and_CC as_CSA its_APPGE destiny_NN1 '_GE ._. 
Sartre_NP1 's_GE '_GE singular_JJ universal_NN1 '_GE ,_, therefore_RR ,_, begs_VVZ the_AT question_NN1 ,_, for_IF it_PPH1 is_VBZ predicated_VVN on_II the_AT assumption_NN1 that_CST ,_, if_CS there_EX is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 totality_NN1 as_II such_DA ,_, then_RT there_EX already_RR is_VBZ an_AT1 overall_JJ totalization_NN1 :_: '_" If_CSW totalization_NN1 really_RR is_VBZ an_AT1 ongoing_JJ process_NN1 ..._... '_GE ._. 
That_DD1 developing_JJ process_NN1 is_VBZ itself_PPX1 totalized_VVN through_II Sartre_NP1 's_GE assertion_NN1 that_CST each_DD1 totalization_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT totalization_NN1 of_IO all_DB struggles_NN2 ,_, as_CSA it_PPH1 must_VM be_VBI if_CSW the_AT singular_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO incarnate_VVI the_AT universal_JJ ._. 
The_AT concept_NN1 of_IO the_AT singular_JJ universal_JJ thus_RR facilitates_VVZ a_AT1 circularity_NN1 in_II the_AT argument_NN1 whereby_RRQ Sartre_NP1 can_VM avoid_VVI the_AT question_NN1 which_DDQ he_PPHS1 began_VVD by_II posing_VVG ._. 
So_RR the_AT singular_JJ universal_JJ presumes_VVZ the_AT totalization_NN1 he_PPHS1 ca_VM n't_XX (_( yet_RR )_) prove_VV0 ._. 
This_DD1 strategy_NN1 marks_VVZ a_AT1 structure_NN1 of_IO repetition_NN1 in_II Sartre_NP1 's_GE text_NN1 :_: each_DD1 time_NNT1 he_PPHS1 poses_VVZ the_AT question_NN1 of_IO how_RRQ there_EX can_VM be_VBI totalization_NN1 of_IO History_NN1 without_IW a_AT1 totalizer_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 retreats_VVZ to_II a_AT1 more_RGR limited_JJ example_NN1 whose_DDQGE unity_NN1 is_VBZ already_RR evident_JJ ,_, but_CCB which_DDQ in_II the_AT end_NN1 only_RR brings_VVZ him_PPHO1 back_RP to_II the_AT original_JJ question_NN1 again_RT ._. 
In_II this_DD1 case_NN1 Sartre_NP1 demonstrates_VVZ how_RRQ the_AT singular_JJ universal_JJ works_NN ,_, by_II appealing_VVG to_II the_AT concrete_JJ example_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 boxing_NN1 match_VV0 a_AT1 random_JJ exemplification_NN1 that_CST just_RR happens_VVZ to_TO reproduce_VVI the_AT single_JJ adversaries_NN2 of_IO the_AT master/slave_NN1 dialectic_NN1 ._. 
Its_APPGE totalization_NN1 takes_VVZ place_NN1 through_II its_APPGE incarnation_NN1 ,_, as_II part_NN1 of_IO the_AT totality_NN1 of_IO boxing_NN1 ,_, in_II the_AT overall_JJ framework_NN1 within_II which_DDQ each_DD1 individual_JJ fight_NN1 occurs_VVZ ._. 
Each_DD1 boxing_NN1 match_NN1 ,_, Sartre_NP1 claims_VVZ ,_, must_VM be_VBI both_RR a_AT1 unique_JJ event_NN1 and_CC also_RR in_II some_DD sense_NN1 the_AT incarnation_NN1 of_IO all_DB boxing_NN1 ,_, whose_DDQGE rules_NN2 and_CC conventions_NN2 it_PPH1 follows_VVZ ,_, and_CC whose_DDQGE past_NN1 and_CC future_JJ history_NN1 it_PPH1 sets_VVZ itself_PPX1 against_II ._. 
But_CCB it_PPH1 is_VBZ also_RR apparent_JJ that_CST that_DD1 totality_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX completely_RR known_VVN ,_, nor_CC is_VBZ its_APPGE future_JJ shape_NN1 even_RR presumed_VVN ._. 
By_II totalization_NN1 ,_, therefore_RR ,_, Sartre_NP1 does_VDZ not_XX here_RL mean_VVI anything_PN1 like_II a_AT1 predetermined_JJ end_NN1 or_CC final_JJ closure_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 totality_NN1 but_CCB rather_RG a_AT1 process_NN1 of_IO mediation_NN1 among_II the_AT parts_NN2 ,_, where_CS each_DD1 is_VBZ determined_VVN by_II the_AT other_JJ ._. 
No_PN121 one_PN122 can_VM predict_VVI the_AT future_NN1 of_IO boxing_NN1 ,_, either_RR at_II the_AT level_NN1 of_IO particular_JJ victories_NN2 or_CC defeats_NN2 ,_, in_II effect_NN1 a_AT1 structure_NN1 of_IO repetition_NN1 ,_, nor_CC at_II the_AT more_RGR general_JJ level_NN1 of_IO possible_JJ modifications_NN2 or_CC developments_NN2 of_IO the_AT sport_NN1 ._. 
Yet_RR each_DD1 individual_JJ bout_NN1 articulates_VVZ itself_PPX1 within_II the_AT framework_NN1 of_IO the_AT history_NN1 of_IO boxing_NN1 ,_, known_VVN and_CC unknown_JJ ._. 
This_DD1 allows_VVZ Sartre_NP1 to_TO include_VVI chance_NN1 and_CC contingency_NN1 in_II his_APPGE scheme_NN1 ._. 
Since_CS it_PPH1 can_VM not_XX be_VBI known_VVN as_II a_AT1 concept_NN1 that_CST will_VM realize_VVI itself_PPX1 in_II the_AT future_NN1 ,_, Sartre_NP1 argues_VVZ instead_RR that_CST the_AT totality_NN1 only_RR produces_VVZ itself_PPX1 in_II the_AT moment_NN1 :_: '_GE The_AT incarnation_NN1 as_CSA such_DA is_VBZ at_II once_RR unrealizable_JJ except_CS as_CSA totalization_NN1 of_IO everything_PN1 and_CC irreducible_JJ to_II a_AT1 pure_JJ abstract_JJ unity_NN1 of_IO that_DD1 which_DDQ it_PPH1 totalizes_58 '_GE (_( II_MC ,_, 58_MC )_) ._. 
The_AT universal_JJ ,_, the_AT totality_NN1 ,_, can_VM only_RR be_VBI known_VVN through_II the_AT singular_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB its_APPGE future_JJ direction_NN1 remains_VVZ unknown_JJ and_CC indeterminate_JJ ._. 
At_II the_AT same_DA time_NNT1 Sartre_NP1 makes_VVZ a_AT1 larger_JJR ,_, though_CS less_RGR persuasive_JJ claim_NN1 that_CST the_AT boxing-match_NN1 also_RR works_VVZ synecdochally_RR and_CC re-exteriorizes_VVZ a_AT1 more_RGR fundamental_JJ violence_NN1 ,_, namely_REX the_AT interiorized_JJ condition_NN1 of_IO scarcity_NN1 that_CST he_PPHS1 considers_VVZ to_TO be_VBI the_AT basis_NN1 of_IO conflict_NN1 in_RR21 general_RR22 ._. 
The_AT boxing_NN1 match_NN1 '_GE is_VBZ the_AT public_JJ incarnation_NN1 of_IO all_DB conflict_NN1 '_GE (_( II_MC ,_, 32_MC )_) ,_, totalizing_VVG in_II its_APPGE own_DA struggle_NN1 the_AT whole_NN1 of_IO '_GE contemporary_JJ irreducibilities_NN2 and_CC fissures_NN2 '_GE (_( II_MC ,_, 26_MC )_) :_: thus_RR one_MC1 can_VM and_CC must_VM say_VVI ..._... that_CST each_DD1 fight_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT singularisation_NN1 of_IO all_DB the_AT circumstances_NN2 of_IO the_AT social_JJ whole_NN1 in_II movement_NN1 and_CC that_CST by_II this_DD1 singularisation_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 incarnates_VVZ the_AT enveloping_JJ totalization_NN1 which_DDQ the_AT historical_JJ process_NN1 is_VBZ ._. 
(_( II_MC ,_, 58_MC )_) But_CCB then_RT he_PPHS1 adds_VVZ ,_, '_" I_PPIS1 have_VH0 said_VVN and_CC I_PPIS1 repeat_VV0 that_CST we_PPIS2 have_VH0 not_XX yet_RR proved_VVN that_CST this_DD1 enveloping_JJ totalization_NN1 exists_58 '_GE ._. 
So_RR ,_, although_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ possible_JJ to_TO conceive_VVI of_IO any_DD event_NN1 as_II an_AT1 incarnation_NN1 of_IO the_AT totality_NN1 ,_, insofar_CS21 as_CS22 it_PPH1 must_VM itself_PPX1 make_VVI up_RP a_AT1 part_NN1 of_IO that_DD1 totality_NN1 in_II its_APPGE determination_NN1 ,_, unlike_II the_AT case_NN1 of_IO the_AT boxing_NN1 match_NN1 ,_, where_CS we_PPIS2 can_VM define_VVI the_AT overall_JJ entity_NN1 '_GE boxing_NN1 '_GE ,_, it_PPH1 still_RR remains_VVZ unproven_VVN that_CST an_AT1 overall_JJ entity_NN1 ,_, '_GE History_NN1 '_GE ,_, can_VM be_VBI said_VVN to_TO exist_VVI at_RR21 all_RR22 ._. 
For_IF all_DB his_APPGE use_NN1 of_IO the_AT model_NN1 of_IO the_AT boxing_NN1 match_NN1 ,_, Sartre_NP1 has_VHZ really_RR got_VVN no_AT further_RRR with_IW the_AT fundamental_JJ question_NN1 of_IO how_RRQ there_EX can_VM be_VBI totalization_NN1 without_IW a_AT1 totalizer_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ simple_JJ enough_RR for_IF him_PPHO1 to_TO show_VVI that_CST a_AT1 boxing_NN1 match_NN1 takes_VVZ place_NN1 within_II a_AT1 general_JJ totality_NN1 of_IO '_GE boxing_NN1 '_GE ,_, which_DDQ is_VBZ itself_PPX1 only_RR ever_RR present_JJ in_II any_DD individual_JJ incarnation_NN1 ,_, for_IF as_II a_AT1 game_NN1 each_DD1 match_NN1 is_VBZ both_RR an_AT1 individual_JJ bout_NN1 and_CC something_PN1 conducted_VVD according_II21 to_II22 general_JJ rules_NN2 and_CC a_AT1 specific_JJ social_JJ tradition_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB what_DDQ about_II those_DD2 conflicts_NN2 that_CST do_VD0 not_XX take_VVI place_NN1 within_II such_DA a_AT1 constituted_JJ social_JJ system_NN1 ,_, such_DA as_CSA conflictual_JJ bourgeois_JJ societies_NN2 which_DDQ can_VM not_XX be_VBI said_VVN to_TO be_VBI unified_VVN ,_, except_CS ,_, as_CSA Sartre_NP1 suggests_VVZ dismissively_RR ,_, by_II appeal_NN1 to_II a_AT1 lost_JJ paradise_NN1 before_II the_AT class_NN1 struggle_NN1 ?_? 
Such_DA societies_NN2 make_VV0 the_AT conflicts_NN2 of_IO history_NN1 irreducible_JJ to_II Sartre_NP1 's_GE logic_NN1 unless_CS ,_, like_II the_AT boxing_NN1 match_NN1 ,_, they_PPHS2 can_VM be_VBI shown_VVN to_TO take_VVI part_NN1 in_II a_AT1 larger_JJR totalizable_JJ category_NN1 ._. 
However_RR ,_, when_CS he_PPHS1 poses_VVZ the_AT question_NN1 of_IO whether_CSW his_APPGE method_NN1 could_VM work_VVI as_RR21 well_RR22 for_IF the_AT class_NN1 struggle_NN1 as_II21 for_II22 the_AT boxing_NN1 match_NN1 ,_, Sartre_NP1 admits_VVZ that_CST he_PPHS1 finds_VVZ it_PPH1 impossible_JJ to_TO answer_VVI and_CC returns_VVZ instead_RR to_II the_AT much_RR easier_JJR case_NN1 of_IO sub-groups_NN2 ._. 
Once_RR21 again_RR22 he_PPHS1 backtracks_VVZ and_CC assumes_VVZ a_AT1 larger_JJR unity_NN1 in_II which_DDQ conflict_NN1 takes_VVZ place_NN1 ._. 
The_AT major_JJ question_NN1 thus_RR always_RR remains_VVZ unanswered_JJ in_II the_AT Critique_NN1 :_: every_AT1 time_NNT1 that_CST Sartre_NP1 announces_VVZ that_CST he_PPHS1 is_VBZ about_RPK to_TO proceed_VVI with_IW the_AT fundamental_JJ problem_NN1 of_IO how_RRQ History_NN1 can_VM be_VBI a_AT1 totalization_NN1 without_IW a_AT1 totalizer_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 turns_VVZ back_RP to_II a_AT1 previous_JJ ,_, more_RGR easily_RR intelligible_JJ stage_NN1 on_II the_AT way_NN1 ._. 
His_APPGE difficulty_NN1 is_VBZ accompanied_VVN by_II a_AT1 no_RR21 doubt_RR22 symptomatic_JJ increasing_JJ distrust_NN1 of_IO universals_NN2 so_CS21 that_CS22 ,_, in_II championing_VVG specificities_NN2 against_II them_PPHO2 ,_, he_PPHS1 seems_VVZ to_TO give_VVI up_RP the_AT attempt_NN1 to_TO validate_VVI the_AT universals_NN2 History_NN1 as_CSA Totalization_NN1 that_CST originally_RR formed_VVD the_AT object_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE project_NN1 ._. 
At_II this_DD1 point_NN1 a_AT1 further_JJR contradiction_NN1 in_II Sartre_NP1 's_GE whole_JJ enterprise_NN1 begins_VVZ to_TO open_VVI up_RP :_: for_IF someone_PN1 so_RG deeply_RR distrustful_JJ of_IO universals_NN2 it_PPH1 seems_VVZ curious_JJ that_CST he_PPHS1 has_VHZ involved_VVN himself_PPX1 so_RG emphatically_RR with_IW the_AT notions_NN2 of_IO totality_NN1 ,_, History_NN1 ,_, and_CC the_AT dialectic_NN1 ._. 
As_CSA Sartre_NP1 insists_VVZ more_DAR and_CC more_RRR upon_II the_AT virtues_NN2 of_IO specificity_NN1 (_( II_MC ,_, 200_MC 05_MC )_) ,_, such_DA is_VBZ his_APPGE distaste_NN1 for_IF Marxist_JJ or_CC any_DD other_JJ universalizing_JJ categories_NN2 that_CST he_PPHS1 refuses_VVZ even_RR to_TO countenance_VVI them_PPHO2 ,_, attempting_VVG to_TO replace_VVI concepts_NN2 with_IW specificities_NN2 ,_, universals_NN2 with_IW singulars_NN2 ._. 
His_APPGE scepticism_NN1 goes_VVZ to_II the_AT extent_NN1 of_IO even_RR denying_VVG the_AT existence_NN1 of_IO '_GE society_NN1 '_GE or_CC '_GE the_AT nation_NN1 '_GE as_CSA such_DA (_( II_MC ,_, 24_MC ,_, 61_MC )_) the_AT very_JJ totalities_NN2 which_DDQ his_APPGE own_DA general_JJ argument_NN1 for_IF totalization_NN1 requires_VVZ ._. 
Here_RL certain_JJ similarities_NN2 with_IW later_JJR '_GE post-Marxist_NN1 '_GE theorists_NN2 such_II21 as_II22 Foucault_NP1 or_CC Lyotard_NP1 ,_, begin_VV0 to_TO become_VVI apparent_JJ ._. 
But_CCB if_CS Sartre_NP1 anticipates_VVZ such_DA later_JJR thinkers_NN2 we_PPIS2 should_VM not_XX assume_VVI too_RG quickly_RR that_CST they_PPHS2 have_VH0 simply_RR taken_VVN his_APPGE insights_NN2 further_RRR ._. 
For_IF Sartre_NP1 's_GE singular_JJ universal_JJ could_VM never_RR be_VBI expected_VVN to_TO solve_VVI the_AT formal_JJ theoretical_JJ problem_NN1 of_IO how_RGQ individual_JJ existential_JJ existence_NN1 can_VM be_VBI related_VVN to_II History_NN1 insofar_CS21 as_CS22 it_PPH1 simply_RR renames_VVZ ,_, in_II one_MC1 oxymoronic_JJ category_NN1 ,_, the_AT original_JJ antithetical_JJ terms_NN2 ._. 
Without_IW an_AT1 adequate_JJ theory_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE articulation_NN1 ,_, they_PPHS2 simply_RR begin_VV0 to_TO separate_VVI again_RT ._. 
IV_MC THE_AT AMBIVALENCE_NN1 OF_IO HISTORY_NN1 The_AT '_GE singular_JJ universal_NN1 '_GE ,_, with_IW its_APPGE organicist_NN1 and_CC essentialist_NN1 overtones_VVZ whereby_RRQ the_AT part_NN1 incarnates_VVZ the_AT whole_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ thus_RR the_AT product_NN1 of_IO Sartre_NP1 's_GE hesitation_NN1 between_II the_AT singular_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ remains_VVZ privileged_JJ as_II the_AT existential_JJ basis_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ,_, and_CC the_AT universal_JJ which_DDQ as_II a_AT1 Marxist_JJ he_PPHS1 feels_VVZ is_VBZ required_VVN for_IF its_APPGE intelligibility_NN1 and_CC validation_NN1 ._. 
The_AT effect_NN1 of_IO Sartre_NP1 's_GE oscillation_NN1 between_II these_DD2 two_MC poles_NN2 is_VBZ that_CST his_APPGE argument_NN1 is_VBZ increasingly_RR drawn_VVN towards_II the_AT very_JJ positions_NN2 that_CST ostensibly_RR he_PPHS1 wishes_VVZ to_TO refute_VVI ._. 
So_RR ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, he_PPHS1 compulsively_RR returns_VVZ to_II the_AT idea_NN1 that_CST history_NN1 might_VM consist_VVI of_IO several_DA2 totalizations_NN2 rather_II21 than_II22 one_MC1 :_: Might_VM not_XX History_NN1 ,_, at_II the_AT level_NN1 of_IO the_AT grand_JJ ensembles_NN2 ,_, be_VBI an_AT1 ambiguous_JJ interpenetration_NN1 of_IO unity_NN1 and_CC plurality_NN1 ,_, of_IO dialectic_NN1 and_CC anti-dialectic_NN1 ,_, of_IO sense_NN1 and_CC nonsense_NN1 ?_? 
Might_VM there_EX not_XX be_VBI ,_, according_II21 to_II22 the_AT circumstances_NN2 and_CC the_AT particular_JJ ensemble_NN1 ,_, several_DA2 totalizations_NN2 without_IW any_DD links_NN2 between_II them_PPHO2 except_II coexistence_NN1 or_CC no_DDQV31 matter_DDQV32 what_DDQV33 other_JJ exterior_JJ link_NN1 ?_? 
(_( II_MC ,_, 131_MC )_) Up_II21 to_II22 this_DD1 point_NN1 ,_, Sartre_NP1 's_GE notion_NN1 of_IO conflict_NN1 has_VHZ operated_VVN in_II direct_JJ antithesis_NN1 to_II that_DD1 of_IO Bakhtin_NP1 :_: whereas_CS for_IF Sartre_NP1 ,_, struggles_NN2 are_VBR totalizing_VVG ,_, always_RR creating_VVG a_AT1 larger_JJR ,_, meaningful_JJ and_CC developing_JJ whole_NN1 out_II21 of_II22 multiplicities_NN2 ,_, for_IF Bakhtin_NP1 they_PPHS2 are_VBR detotalizing_VVG ,_, dissolving_JJ '_GE previous_JJ totalisations_NN2 '_GE ._. 
But_CCB Sartre_NP1 's_GE own_DA text_NN1 here_RL develops_VVZ a_AT1 dialogism_NN1 in_II the_AT tension_NN1 between_II these_DD2 two_MC possibilities_NN2 which_DDQ becomes_VVZ an_AT1 increasingly_RR dominant_JJ characteristic_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE regressive-progressive_JJ method_NN1 and_CC ends_VVZ up_RP by_II detotalizing_VVG the_AT very_JJ totalization_NN1 which_DDQ he_PPHS1 sought_VVD to_TO prove_VVI ._. 
Here_RL we_PPIS2 find_VV0 the_AT theoretical_JJ corollary_NN1 of_IO what_DDQ Althusser_NP1 was_VBDZ to_TO characterize_VVI as_II the_AT tragic_JJ '_GE double_JJ thesis_NN1 '_GE of_IO Sartre_NP1 's_GE '_GE historicist_NN1 humanism_NN1 '_GE ,_, and_CC which_DDQ produced_VVD ,_, in_II Michael_NP1 Sprinker_NP1 's_GE words_NN2 ,_, a_AT1 '_GE ceaseless_JJ rebounding_NN1 between_II the_AT poles_NN2 of_IO revolutionary_JJ optimism_NN1 and_CC historical_JJ pessimism_NN1 '_GE ._. 
Sartre_NP1 himself_PPX1 theorizes_VVZ this_DD1 growing_JJ ambivalence_NN1 as_II the_AT difference_NN1 between_II his_APPGE own_DA method_NN1 and_CC that_DD1 of_IO orthodox_JJ Marxism_NN1 ,_, elaborating_VVG the_AT distinction_NN1 between_II concept_NN1 and_CC incarnation_NN1 as_CSA two_MC possible_JJ paths_NN2 of_IO a_AT1 dialectical_JJ understanding_NN1 of_IO the_AT same_DA social_JJ reality_NN1 ._. 
The_AT concept_NN1 ,_, as_CSA employed_VVN by_II orthodox_JJ Marxism_NN1 ,_, goes_VVZ from_II the_AT singular_NN1 to_II the_AT universal_JJ and_CC therefore_RR ,_, Sartre_NP1 claims_VVZ ,_, detotalizes_VVZ in_II a_AT1 movement_NN1 of_IO '_GE decompressive_JJ expansion_NN1 '_GE ,_, whereas_CS incarnation_NN1 involves_58 '_GE a_AT1 way_NN1 of_IO totalizing_VVG compression_NN1 which_DDQ ,_, on_II the_AT contrary_NN1 ,_, seizes_VVZ the_AT centripetal_JJ movement_NN1 of_IO all_DB the_AT significations_NN2 drawn_VVN in_RP and_CC condensed_VVN in_II the_AT event_NN1 or_CC in_II the_AT object_NN1 '_GE (_( II_MC ,_, 59_MC )_) ._. 
But_CCB it_PPH1 is_VBZ rather_RR Sartre_NP1 's_GE own_DA text_NN1 that_CST seems_VVZ to_TO be_VBI caught_VVN between_II these_DD2 two_MC dialectical_JJ possibilities_NN2 of_IO expansion_NN1 and_CC compression_NN1 in_II a_AT1 double_JJ logic_NN1 ._. 
Thus_RR the_AT very_JJ concept_NN1 of_IO totalization_NN1 ,_, distinguished_VVN from_II totality_NN1 ,_, must_VM always_RR be_VBI refused_VVN its_APPGE prospective_JJ closure_NN1 ,_, for_CS if_CS '_GE History_NN1 continually_RR effects_NN2 totalisation_NN1 of_IO totalisations_NN2 '_GE (_( I_ZZ1 ,_, 15_MC )_) it_PPH1 must_VM necessarily_RR also_RR mean_VVI that_CST by_II definition_NN1 it_PPH1 can_VM never_RR be_VBI absolutely_RR totalized_VVN ._. 
As_CSA he_PPHS1 puts_VVZ it_PPH1 in_II The_AT Problem_NN1 of_IO Method_NN1 :_: '_" For_IF us_PPIO2 the_AT reality_NN1 of_IO the_AT collective_JJ object_NN1 rests_VVZ on_II recurrence_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 demonstrates_VVZ that_CST the_AT totalization_NN1 is_VBZ never_RR achieved_VVN and_CC that_CST the_AT totality_NN1 exists_VVZ at_RR21 best_RR22 only_RR in_II the_AT form_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 detotalized_JJ totality_NN1 ._. 
'_" How_RRQ then_RT can_VV0 history_NN1 totalize_VV0 totalization_NN1 if_CS totalization_NN1 is_VBZ never_RR accomplished_VVN ?_? 
This_DD1 is_VBZ the_AT point_NN1 at_II which_DDQ the_AT dialectic_NN1 ,_, as_CSA a_AT1 unity_NN1 of_IO method_NN1 and_CC movement_NN1 ,_, of_IO subject_NN1 and_CC object_NN1 ,_, knower_NN1 and_CC known_VVN ,_, requires_VVZ the_AT writing_NN1 subject_NN1 who_PNQS must_VM effectively_RR hold_VVI them_PPHO2 together_RL ._. 
Thus_RR the_AT critical_JJ investigation_NN1 takes_VVZ place_NN1 inside_II the_AT totalisation_NN1 and_CC can_VM be_VBI neither_RR a_AT1 contemplative_JJ recognition_NN1 of_IO the_AT totalising_JJ movement_NN1 ,_, nor_CC a_AT1 particular_JJ ,_, autonomous_JJ totalisation_NN1 of_IO the_AT known_JJ totalisation_NN1 ._. 
Rather_RR it_PPH1 is_VBZ a_AT1 real_JJ moment_NN1 of_IO the_AT developing_JJ totalisation_NN1 ..._... 
(_( I_ZZ1 ,_, 48_MC )_) This_DD1 means_VVZ that_CST the_AT process_NN1 of_IO totalization_NN1 must_VM be_VBI kept_VVN moving_VVG by_II the_AT critical_JJ investigation_NN1 itself_PPX1 on_II which_DDQ it_PPH1 comes_VVZ to_TO depend_VVI but_CCB which_DDQ by_II the_AT same_DA token_NN1 it_PPH1 can_VM never_RR subsume_VVI ._. 
Every_AT1 time_NNT1 that_CST Sartre_NP1 asserts_VVZ the_AT enveloping_JJ movement_NN1 of_IO the_AT historical_JJ process_NN1 ,_, while_CS adding_VVG emphatically_RR that_CST he_PPHS1 has_VHZ yet_RR not_XX proved_VVN that_CST such_DA a_AT1 totalization_NN1 exists_VVZ ,_, he_PPHS1 must_VM always_RR simultaneously_RR introduce_VVI a_AT1 counterstructure_NN1 of_IO repetition_NN1 ,_, so_CS21 that_CS22 his_APPGE argument_NN1 seems_VVZ to_TO fluctuate_VVI ,_, like_II the_AT groups_NN2 that_CST he_PPHS1 describes_VVZ ,_, '_GE in_II a_AT1 state_NN1 of_IO perpetual_JJ detotalisation_NN1 '_GE (_( I_ZZ1 ,_, 579_MC )_) ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ why_RRQ although_CS he_PPHS1 dares_VVZ to_TO pose_VVI his_APPGE overwhelming_JJ question_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 can_VM never_RR be_VBI in_II a_AT1 position_NN1 to_TO answer_VVI it_PPH1 with_IW more_DAR than_CSN an_AT1 assertion_NN1 and_CC the_AT promise_NN1 of_IO more_DAR totalizations_NN2 ._. 
The_AT indetermination_NN1 he_PPHS1 sought_VVD to_II excise_NN1 returns_VVZ to_TO govern_VVI him_PPHO1 ._. 
The_AT Critiques_NN2 can_VM do_VDI nothing_PN1 but_CS proliferate_VVI extravagantly_RR into_II the_AT writing_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 perpetual_JJ process_NN1 of_IO deferral_NN1 ._. 
If_CS the_AT singular_JJ universal_JJ increasingly_RR punctuates_VVZ the_AT forward_JJ movement_NN1 of_IO Sartre_NP1 's_GE text_NN1 instead_II21 of_II22 providing_VVG it_PPH1 with_IW a_AT1 dialectical_JJ meaning_NN1 and_CC direction_NN1 ,_, the_AT problem_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 was_VBDZ invoked_VVN to_TO solve_VVI meanwhile_RR takes_VVZ its_APPGE own_DA aberrant_JJ course_NN1 ._. 
Denying_VVG that_DD1 conflict_NN1 is_VBZ an_AT1 a_JJ21 priori_JJ22 structure_NN1 actualized_VVD in_II historical_JJ struggle_NN1 ,_, we_PPIS2 have_VH0 seen_VVN that_CST Sartre_NP1 does_VDZ explain_VVI ,_, through_II the_AT category_NN1 of_IO the_AT '_GE practico-inert_JJ '_GE (_( determining_JJ material_NN1 conditions_NN2 which_DDQ have_VH0 themselves_PPX2 been_VBN created_VVN by_II previous_JJ praxis_NN1 )_) ,_, how_RRQ individuals_NN2 or_CC classes_NN2 in_II conflict_NN1 produce_VV0 a_AT1 historical_JJ movement_NN1 to_II which_DDQ they_PPHS2 are_VBR then_RT subject_NN1 ._. 
Actions_NN2 ,_, in_II turn_NN1 ,_, create_VV0 the_AT conditions_NN2 for_IF their_APPGE own_DA contradiction_NN1 when_CS the_AT successful_JJ fulfilment_NN1 of_IO praxis_NN1 is_VBZ prevented_VVN by_II the_AT action_NN1 of_IO another_DD1 praxis_NN1 whose_DDQGE aims_NN2 conflict_VV0 with_IW it_PPH1 ._. 
The_AT fact_NN1 that_CST conflict_NN1 produces_VVZ anti-labour_NN1 ,_, or_CC a_AT1 contingent_JJ situation_NN1 that_CST was_VBDZ not_XX the_AT original_JJ aim_NN1 of_IO either_DD1 conflictual_JJ group_NN1 ,_, must_VM mean_VVI that_CST in_II this_DD1 schema_NN1 History_NN1 has_VHZ a_AT1 negative_JJ unity_NN1 ,_, notwithstanding_II the_AT troubled_JJ formulation_NN1 of_IO the_AT singular-universal_JJ ._. 
If_CS Sartre_NP1 denies_VVZ all_DB possibility_NN1 both_RR of_IO an_AT1 underlying_JJ historical_JJ structure_NN1 and_CC of_IO a_AT1 larger_JJR unity_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 '_GE hyper-organism_NN1 '_GE as_CSA he_PPHS1 puts_VVZ it_PPH1 ,_, within_II which_DDQ conflict_NN1 takes_VVZ place_NN1 ,_, then_RT history_NN1 as_CSA he_PPHS1 conceptualizes_VVZ it_PPH1 here_RL has_VHZ no_AT specific_JJ or_CC necessary_JJ direction_NN1 ._. 
More_RGR seriously_RR ,_, it_PPH1 suggests_VVZ that_DD1 history_NN1 will_VM always_RR deviate_VVI from_II any_DD intended_JJ route_NN1 and_CC take_VVI an_AT1 unforeseen_JJ one_PN1 instead_RR ._. 
If_CS political_JJ struggle_NN1 takes_VVZ place_NN1 for_IF specific_JJ purposes_NN2 and_CC anticipated_JJ results_NN2 ,_, here_RL Sartre_NP1 seems_VVZ to_TO condemn_VVI it_PPH1 to_II an_AT1 unending_JJ series_NN of_IO detours_NN2 that_CST will_VM never_RR arrive_VVI at_II their_APPGE destination_NN1 ._. 
Insofar_CS21 as_CS22 '_GE History_NN1 '_GE names_NN2 the_AT horizon_NN1 of_IO totalization_NN1 of_IO those_DD2 ethico-political_JJ meanings_NN2 that_CST point_NN1 in_II the_AT direction_NN1 of_IO social_JJ change_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 here_RL not_XX only_RR loses_VVZ its_APPGE single_JJ meaning_NN1 ,_, but_CCB threatens_VVZ to_TO lose_VVI even_RR the_AT bases_NN2 on_II which_DDQ its_APPGE meaning_NN1 is_VBZ constituted_VVN ._. 
Sartre_NP1 ,_, therefore_RR ,_, can_VM not_XX after_II all_DB be_VBI said_VVN to_TO substitute_VVI a_AT1 simple_JJ voluntarism_NN1 for_IF an_AT1 underlying_JJ historical_JJ structure_NN1 ._. 
In_II the_AT second_MD Critique_NN1 Sartre_NP1 seems_VVZ remarkably_RR equivocal_JJ with_II31 regard_II32 to_II33 his_APPGE central_JJ question_NN1 of_IO how_RRQ struggles_NN2 which_DDQ have_VH0 no_AT controlling_JJ totalizer_NN1 or_CC underlying_JJ structure_NN1 of_IO totalization_NN1 can_VM be_VBI intelligible_JJ ._. 
He_PPHS1 begins_VVZ by_II allowing_VVG the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO schism_NN1 ,_, such_II21 as_II22 that_DD1 which_DDQ took_VVD place_NN1 in_II the_AT Roman_JJ Empire_NN1 (_( II_MC ,_, 84_MC )_) ,_, which_DDQ implies_VVZ that_CST humans_NN2 can_VM choose_VVI not_XX to_TO allow_VVI totalization_NN1 ._. 
He_PPHS1 then_RT admits_VVZ that_CST the_AT result_NN1 of_IO any_DD conflict_NN1 ,_, though_CS it_PPH1 may_VM be_VBI intelligible_JJ ,_, may_VM not_XX necessarily_RR imply_VVI any_DD progress_NN1 ._. 
Progress_NN1 or_CC improvement_NN1 is_VBZ no_AT more_RGR likely_JJ than_CSN decline_NN1 :_: he_PPHS1 now_RT repeatedly_RR disowns_VVZ any_DD necessary_JJ historical_JJ logic_NN1 of_IO progress_NN1 ;_; its_APPGE incarnations_NN2 will_VM always_RR ,_, strictly_RR speaking_VVG ,_, be_VBI accidental_JJ ones_NN2 in_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 the_AT objectives_NN2 which_DDQ were_VBDR at_II the_AT origin_NN1 of_IO praxis_NN1 :_: &lsqb;_( History_NN1 &rsqb;_) is_VBZ not_XX rigorous_JJ because_CS it_PPH1 always_RR proceeds_VVZ by_II faults_NN2 and_CC corrections_NN2 ,_, because_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX in_II any_DD way_NN1 a_AT1 universal_JJ schema_NN1 but_CCB a_AT1 unique_JJ adventure_NN1 that_CST unfolds_VVZ on_II the_AT basis_NN1 of_IO prehistoric_JJ circumstances_NN2 which_DDQ constitute_VV0 in_II themselves_PPX2 ,_, and_CC in_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 all_DB the_AT objectives_NN2 and_CC all_DB the_AT practices_NN2 ,_, a_AT1 heavy_JJ and_CC badly_RR understood_VVN legacy_NN1 of_IO fundamental_JJ deviations_NN2 ._. 
(_( II_MC ,_, 238_MC )_) History_NN1 therefore_RR does_VDZ have_VHI a_AT1 structure_NN1 of_IO sorts_NN2 a_AT1 legacy_NN1 of_IO continual_JJ aberration_NN1 ._. 
By_II abandoning_VVG any_DD logic_NN1 of_IO progress_NN1 for_IF the_AT negative_JJ synthesis_NN1 of_IO anti-labour_NN1 which_DDQ produces_VVZ deviation_NN1 ,_, Sartre_NP1 is_VBZ ,_, on_II the_AT other_JJ hand_NN1 ,_, able_JK to_TO account_VVI for_IF the_AT major_JJ detour_NN1 that_CST provides_VVZ the_AT context_NN1 for_IF his_APPGE whole_JJ debate_NN1 with_IW Merleau-Ponty_NN1 ,_, and_CC indeed_RR for_IF all_DB post-war_JJ Marxism_NN1 :_: the_AT spectre_NN1 of_IO Stalinism_NN1 ._. 
The_AT problem_NN1 ,_, however_RR ,_, is_VBZ that_CST though_CS Sartre_NP1 produces_VVZ a_AT1 provocative_JJ analysis_NN1 of_IO why_RRQ Stalin_NP1 was_VBDZ successful_JJ ,_, this_DD1 imperceptibly_RR slides_VVZ into_II an_AT1 account_NN1 of_IO why_RRQ Stalin_NP1 had_VHD to_TO do_VDI what_DDQ he_PPHS1 did_VDD ,_, to_II the_AT extent_NN1 that_CST Sartre_NP1 appears_VVZ to_TO justify_VVI his_APPGE actions_NN2 according_II21 to_II22 the_AT particular_JJ necessities_NN2 of_IO his_APPGE historical_JJ circumstances_NN2 ._. 
Thus_RR Sartre_NP1 argues_VVZ that_CST it_PPH1 was_VBDZ necessary_JJ to_TO choose_VVI between_II the_AT break-up_NN1 of_IO the_AT Revolution_NN1 and_CC its_APPGE deviation_NN1 ._. 
Stalinism_NN1 ,_, in_II fact_NN1 ,_, accords_VVZ all_DB too_RG perfectly_RR with_IW the_AT perverse_JJ structures_NN2 of_IO Sartre_NP1 's_GE own_DA theoretical_JJ argument_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 also_RR serves_VVZ ,_, appropriately_RR enough_RR ,_, as_CSA a_AT1 way_NN1 of_IO closing_VVG down_RP the_AT aporias_NN2 which_DDQ have_VH0 opened_VVN up_RP in_II Sartre_NP1 's_GE text_NN1 ._. 
Sartre_NP1 takes_VVZ the_AT slogan_NN1 '_GE socialism_NN1 in_II one_MC1 country_NN1 '_GE as_II an_AT1 example_NN1 of_IO the_AT unintended_JJ but_CCB necessary_JJ product_NN1 of_IO the_AT anti-labour_NN1 of_IO the_AT Stalin-Trotsky_JJ conflict_NN1 ._. 
He_PPHS1 translates_VVZ the_AT '_GE socialism_NN1 in_II one_MC1 country_NN1 '_GE of_IO the_AT one_PN1 versus_II the_AT '_GE internationalism_NN1 '_GE of_IO the_AT other_JJ into_II a_AT1 conflict_NN1 between_II his_APPGE own_DA ,_, now_RT reified_VVD and_CC separated_JJ ,_, terms_NN2 of_IO concrete_JJ incarnation_NN1 and_CC abstract_JJ universalism_NN1 :_: ,_, the_AT revolutionary_JJ incarnation_NN1 chose_VVD the_AT singular_NN1 against_II the_AT universal_JJ and_CC the_AT national_JJ against_II the_AT international'_NN1 (_( II_MC ,_, 223_MC )_) ._. 
Stalin_NP1 therefore_RR becomes_VVZ the_AT authentic_JJ Marxist_JJ ,_, able_JK to_TO deal_VVI with_IW specific_JJ historical_JJ circumstances_NN2 ,_, as_II21 against_II22 Trotsky_NP1 who_PNQS is_VBZ regarded_VVN as_II having_VHG been_VBN hopelessly_RR caught_VVN up_RP with_IW the_AT a_JJ21 priori_JJ22 universalism_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 abstract_JJ Marxism_NN1 ._. 
According_II21 to_II22 Sartre_NP1 ,_, the_AT Revolution_NN1 's_VBZ '_GE incarnation_NN1 directly_RR contradicts_VVZ its_APPGE universalization_NN1 ,_, (_( II_MC ,_, 116_MC )_) ._. 
If_CS he_PPHS1 therefore_RR demonstrates_VVZ why_RRQ socialism_NN1 in_II one_MC1 country_NN1 was_VBDZ historically_RR necessary_JJ ,_, he_PPHS1 ends_VVZ up_RP by_II apparently_RR justifying_VVG Stalinism_NN1 :_: in_II showing_VVG how_RRQ anti-labour_NN1 produces_VVZ deviation_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 seems_VVZ to_TO endorse_VVI its_APPGE course_NN1 while_CS rejecting_VVG any_DD overall_JJ schema_NN1 which_DDQ can_VM provide_VVI the_AT basis_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 claim_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 will_VM be_VBI ultimately_RR corrected_VVN ._. 
The_AT analysis_NN1 stops_VVZ at_II the_AT point_NN1 where_RRQ even_RR Stalin_NP1 's_GE anti-semitism_NN1 begins_VVZ to_TO appear_VVI necessary_JJ (_( II_MC ,_, 281_MC )_) ._. 
Sartre_NP1 never_RR broaches_VVZ the_AT question_NN1 of_IO the_AT other_JJ crimes_NN2 committed_VVN by_II Stalin_NP1 (_( which_DDQ is_VBZ just_RR as_RG well_JJ in_II31 view_II32 of_II33 the_AT way_NN1 the_AT argument_NN1 is_VBZ going_VVG )_) nor_CC does_VDZ he_PPHS1 address_VVI the_AT obvious_JJ problem_NN1 that_CST his_APPGE own_DA identification_NN1 of_IO Stalin_NP1 as_II the_AT practical_JJ Marxist_NN1 of_IO specificities_NN2 against_II Trotsky_NP1 's_GE abstract_JJ universalism_NN1 runs_VVZ directly_RR counter_VV0 to_II the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST Stalinism_NN1 produced_VVD the_AT most_RGT clear-cut_JJ example_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 Marxism_NN1 which_DDQ internalized_VVD an_AT1 abstract_JJ schema_NN1 within_II itself_PPX1 ._. 
Instead_RR ,_, at_II this_DD1 point_NN1 Sartre_NP1 at_II last_MD abandons_VVZ all_DB hope_NN1 of_IO proving_VVG History_NN1 as_II a_AT1 totalization_NN1 without_IW a_AT1 totalizer_NN1 ._. 
He_PPHS1 moves_VVZ into_II a_AT1 long_JJ attempt_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ takes_VVZ up_RP the_AT rest_NN1 of_IO the_AT book_NN1 ,_, to_TO revise_VVI the_AT earlier_JJR ontology_NN1 of_IO Being_VBG and_CC Nothingness_NN1 into_II a_AT1 new_JJ ontology_NN1 of_IO action_NN1 and_CC even_RR of_IO History_NN1 ,_, as_CS21 if_CS22 ,_, after_II all_DB ,_, he_PPHS1 is_VBZ investigating_VVG the_AT prospect_NN1 of_IO accrediting_VVG the_AT latter_DA with_IW ontological_JJ status_NN1 a_AT1 possibility_NN1 which_DDQ has_VHZ always_RR haunted_VVN his_APPGE text_NN1 in_II its_APPGE insistent_JJ negation_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 analysis_NN1 ,_, though_CS lengthy_JJ ,_, remains_VVZ incomplete_JJ ._. 
In_II studying_VVG the_AT deviation_NN1 ,_, Sartre_NP1 himself_PPX1 deviated_VVD from_II his_APPGE original_JJ project_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB this_DD1 was_VBDZ not_XX just_RR the_AT effect_NN1 of_IO Stalin_NP1 per_RR21 se_RR22 ,_, despite_II his_APPGE perverse_JJ attraction_NN1 as_II a_AT1 sort_NN1 of_IO singular-universal_NN1 who_PNQS did_VDD in_II effect_VVI unite_VV0 '_GE man_NN1 '_GE with_IW '_GE history_NN1 '_GE :_: it_PPH1 was_VBDZ also_RR the_AT result_NN1 of_IO the_AT theoretical_JJ collapse_NN1 of_IO the_AT singular-universal_JJ as_II a_AT1 totalizing_JJ concept_NN1 that_CST could_VM save_VVI history_NN1 from_II the_AT aberrant_JJ consequences_NN2 of_IO anti-labour_NN1 ._. 
Sartre_NP1 's_GE philosophical_JJ grounding_NN1 of_IO '_GE History_NN1 '_GE ,_, therefore_RR ,_, foundered_VVD in_II the_AT second_MD volume_NN1 when_CS the_AT logic_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 inexorably_RR brought_VVD him_PPHO1 ,_, not_XX to_II totalization_NN1 without_IW a_AT1 totalizer_NN1 ,_, but_CCB to_II the_AT very_JJ reverse_NN1 :_: the_AT figure_NN1 of_IO Stalin_NP1 and_CC the_AT conclusion_NN1 that_CST Stalinism_NN1 had_VHD been_VBN indispensable_JJ for_IF the_AT development_NN1 of_IO socialism_NN1 in_II the_AT Soviet_JJ Union_NN1 ._. 
Although_CS the_AT Critique_NN1 had_VHD been_VBN intended_VVN to_TO rescue_VVI Marxism_NN1 from_II the_AT sclerosis_NN1 of_IO Stalinism_NN1 ,_, Sartre_NP1 found_VVD that_CST his_APPGE theory_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ,_, far_RR from_II explaining_VVG what_DDQ had_VHD gone_VVN wrong_JJ when_CS the_AT most_RGT radical_JJ political_JJ theory_NN1 turned_VVD out_RP in_II practice_NN1 to_TO be_VBI one_MC1 of_IO the_AT most_RGT oppressive_JJ ,_, had_VHD rather_RR shown_VVN why_RRQ it_PPH1 had_VHD necessarily_RR happened_VVN that_DD1 way_NN1 ._. 
Volume_NN1 II_MC was_VBDZ never_RR completed_VVN ,_, and_CC only_RR published_VVN ,_, unfinished_JJ ,_, in_II 1985_MC ._. 
Thus_RR Sartre_NP1 's_GE attempt_NN1 to_TO prove_VVI the_AT truth_NN1 of_IO Marxism_NN1 and_CC of_IO History_NN1 at_II a_AT1 philosophical_JJ level_NN1 was_VBDZ abandoned_VVN ._. 
The_AT basic_JJ theoretical_JJ problem_NN1 had_VHD been_VBN to_TO show_VVI how_RRQ two_MC or_CC more_RGR autonomous_JJ and_CC contradictory_JJ totalizations_NN2 make_VV0 up_RP one_MC1 dialectical_JJ intelligibility_NN1 :_: to_TO do_VDI this_DD1 he_PPHS1 needed_VVD to_TO totalize_VVI the_AT classes_NN2 in_II struggle_NN1 ,_, and_CC to_TO discover_VVI the_AT synthetic_JJ unity_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 conflictual_JJ society_NN1 ._. 
The_AT articulation_NN1 of_IO individual_JJ praxis_NN1 with_IW History_NN1 stood_VVD or_CC fell_VVD with_IW the_AT concept_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 as_CSA totalization_NN1 without_IW a_AT1 totalizer_NN1 ._. 
The_AT stakes_NN2 had_VHD been_VBN painfully_RR clear_JJ to_II Sartre_NP1 himself_PPX1 :_: '_GE Marxism_NN1 is_VBZ rigorously_RR true_JJ if_CS History_NN1 is_VBZ totalization_NN1 ;_; it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX so_RR any_DD more_DAR if_CS human_JJ history_NN1 decomposes_VVZ into_II a_AT1 plurality_NN1 of_IO particular_JJ histories_NN2 '_GE (_( II_MC ,_, 25_MC )_) ._. 
The_AT problem_NN1 was_VBDZ that_CST the_AT premises_NN2 of_IO his_APPGE own_DA theory_NN1 required_VVN the_AT answer_NN1 to_II this_DD1 question_NN1 to_TO remain_VVI always_RR in_II abeyance_NN1 ,_, while_CS his_APPGE text_NN1 enacts_VVZ rather_II21 than_II22 resolves_VVZ the_AT equivocality_NN1 of_IO the_AT choice_NN1 which_DDQ it_PPH1 sets_VVZ up_RP ._. 
If_CS Sartre_NP1 began_VVD by_II attempting_VVG to_TO unite_VVI man_NN1 with_IW history_NN1 ,_, in_II the_AT notes_NN2 at_II the_AT very_JJ end_NN1 of_IO the_AT manuscript_NN1 he_PPHS1 poses_VVZ once_RR21 more_RR22 the_AT fundamental_JJ ontological_JJ question_NN1 ,_, and_CC immediately_RR follows_VVZ it_PPH1 with_IW a_AT1 decidedly_RR unequivocal_JJ answer_NN1 :_: IS_VBZ HISTORY_NN1 ESSENTIAL_JJ TO_II MAN_NN1 ?_? 
No_UH ._. 
(_( II_MC ,_, 454_MC )_) Sartre_NP1 's_GE argument_NN1 for_IF History_NN1 as_CSA totalization_NN1 ,_, then_RT ,_, was_VBDZ already_RR caught_VVN up_RP in_II interminable_JJ difficulties_NN2 by_II the_AT time_NNT1 he_PPHS1 was_VBDZ drafting_VVG Volume_NN1 II_MC of_IO the_AT Critique_NN1 in_II 1958_MC ._. 
No_AT sooner_RRR had_VHD he_PPHS1 published_VVN Volume_NN1 I_ZZ1 in_II 1960_MC than_CSN the_AT whole_JJ status_NN1 that_CST he_PPHS1 claimed_VVD for_IF History_NN1 ,_, for_IF man_NN1 ,_, and_CC for_IF their_APPGE articulation_NN1 ,_, came_VVD under_II attack_NN1 ._. 
V_ZZ1 HISTORY_NN1 AND_CC ETHNOCENTRICITY_NP1 The_AT case_NN1 of_IO Sartre_NP1 demonstrates_VVZ why_RRQ the_AT assertion_NN1 of_IO '_GE history_NN1 '_GE against_II structuralism_NN1 and_CC poststructuralism_NN1 must_VM always_RR remain_VVI problematical_JJ ._. 
In_II this_DD1 context_NN1 it_PPH1 is_VBZ ironic_JJ that_CST it_PPH1 was_VBDZ a_AT1 structuralist_JJ critique_NN1 of_IO Sartre_NP1 's_GE claims_NN2 for_IF history_NN1 that_CST ,_, in_II historical_JJ terms_NN2 ,_, brought_VVD about_RP the_AT abrupt_JJ intellectual_JJ demise_NN1 of_IO existential_JJ Marxism_NN1 itself_PPX1 ._. 
Lvi-Strauss_NP1 '_GE famous_JJ objections_NN2 to_II Sartre_NP1 ,_, which_DDQ appeared_VVD in_II the_AT last_MD chapter_NN1 of_IO The_AT Savage_JJ Mind_NN1 (_( 1962_MC )_) ,_, are_VBR sometimes_RT represented_VVN as_CS21 if_CS22 they_PPHS2 were_VBDR merely_RR a_AT1 structuralist_JJ attack_NN1 on_II Marxism_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB their_APPGE immediate_JJ occasion_NN1 was_VBDZ as_II a_AT1 response_NN1 to_II the_AT use_NN1 that_CST Sartre_NP1 himself_PPX1 had_VHD made_VVN of_IO Lvi-Strauss_NP1 '_GE The_AT Elementary_JJ Structures_NN2 of_IO kinship_NN1 (_( 1949_MC )_) in_II the_AT first_MD Critique_NN1 ._. 
Sartre_NP1 had_VHD stated_VVN that_CST If_CS there_EX is_VBZ to_TO be_VBI any_DD such_DA thing_NN1 as_CSA the_AT Truth_NN1 of_IO History_NN1 (_( rather_II21 than_II22 several_DA2 truths_NN2 ,_, even_CS21 if_CS22 they_PPHS2 are_VBR organized_VVN into_II a_AT1 system_NN1 )_) ,_, our_APPGE investigation_NN1 must_VM show_VVI that_CST the_AT kind_NN1 of_IO dialectical_JJ intelligibility_NN1 which_DDQ we_PPIS2 have_VH0 described_VVN ..._... applies_VVZ to_II the_AT process_NN1 of_IO human_JJ history_NN1 as_II a_AT1 whole_NN1 (_( I_ZZ1 ,_, 64_MC )_) ._. 
For_IF Sartre_NP1 '_GE human_JJ history_NN1 '_GE was_VBDZ identified_VVN with_IW the_AT history_NN1 of_IO the_AT West_ND1 ,_, and_CC it_PPH1 was_VBDZ for_IF this_DD1 reason_NN1 that_CST Lvi-Strauss_NP1 contested_VVD Sartre_NP1 's_GE claim_NN1 to_TO have_VHI established_VVN the_AT human_JJ foundation_NN1 of_IO '_GE a_AT1 structural_JJ ,_, historical_JJ anthropology_NN1 '_GE for_IF Marxism_NN1 ._. 
In_II retrospect_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 was_VBDZ highly_RR significant_JJ that_CST resistance_NN1 to_II Sartre_NP1 's_GE '_GE History_NN1 '_GE began_VVD by_II drawing_VVG attention_NN1 to_II its_APPGE ethnocentrism_NN1 and_CC Eurocentrism_NN1 ._. 
Lvi-Strauss_NP1 '_GE critique_NN1 of_IO Sartre_NP1 effectively_RR takes_VVZ the_AT form_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 deconstructive_JJ analysis_NN1 :_: he_PPHS1 begins_VVZ by_II arguing_VVG that_CST the_AT Critique_NN1 works_VVZ by_II a_AT1 double_JJ movement_NN1 just_RR as_CSA ,_, only_RR four_MC years_NNT2 later_RRR ,_, Derrida_NP1 was_VBDZ to_TO suggest_VVI that_CST the_AT anthropologist_NN1 's_GE own_DA work_NN1 functions_NN2 in_II exactly_RR the_AT same_DA way_NN1 ._. 
Lvi-Strauss_NP1 focuses_VVZ on_II the_AT ambivalence_NN1 which_DDQ we_PPIS2 have_VH0 already_RR seen_VVN to_TO be_VBI such_DA a_AT1 distinctive_JJ feature_NN1 of_IO the_AT Critique_NN1 ,_, pointing_VVG in_RR21 particular_RR22 to_II Sartre_NP1 's_GE vacillation_NN1 between_II two_MC concepts_NN2 of_IO dialectical_JJ reason_NN1 ._. 
In_II the_AT first_MD he_PPHS1 regards_VVZ it_PPH1 as_CSA antithetical_JJ to_II analytical_JJ reason_NN1 ,_, as_CSA truth_NN1 to_II error_NN1 ,_, while_CS in_II the_AT second_NNT1 he_PPHS1 sees_VVZ it_PPH1 as_RG complementary_JJ to_II it_PPH1 ._. 
If_CS this_DD1 is_VBZ the_AT case_NN1 ,_, then_RT Lvi-Strauss_NP1 argues_VVZ that_CST Sartre_NP1 disqualifies_VVZ his_APPGE own_DA Critique_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ establishes_VVZ the_AT truth_NN1 of_IO dialectical_JJ reason_NN1 partly_RR through_II the_AT exercise_NN1 of_IO analytical_JJ reason_NN1 ,_, as_CSA any_DD critique_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ separates_VVZ subject_NN1 from_II object_NN1 ,_, knower_NN1 from_II known_JJ ,_, inevitably_RR must_VM ._. 
But_CCB then_RT '_GE it_PPH1 is_VBZ difficult_JJ to_TO see_VVI how_RGQ analytical_JJ reason_NN1 could_VM be_VBI applied_VVN to_II dialectical_JJ reason_NN1 and_CC claim_VV0 to_TO establish_VVI it_PPH1 ,_, if_CS the_AT two_MC are_VBR defined_VVN by_II mutually_RR exclusive_JJ characteristics_NN2 '_GE ._. 
Moreover_RR ,_, if_CS the_AT two_MC eventually_RR arrive_VV0 at_II the_AT same_DA truth_NN1 anyway_RR then_RT there_EX seems_VVZ to_TO be_VBI little_RR need_VV0 for_IF dialectical_JJ reason_NN1 at_RR21 all_RR22 ._. 
'_GE Sartre_NP1 's_GE endeavour_NN1 seems_VVZ contradictory_JJ in_II the_AT one_MC1 case_NN1 and_CC superfluous_JJ in_II the_AT other_NN1 '_GE (_( 246_MC )_) ._. 
While_CS stressing_VVG that_CST they_PPHS2 both_DB2 take_VV0 their_APPGE point_NN1 of_IO departure_NN1 from_II Marx_NP1 ,_, Lvi-Strauss_NP1 suggests_VVZ that_CST for_IF him_PPHO1 Marxism_NN1 implies_VVZ that_CST the_AT opposition_NN1 between_II the_AT two_MC sorts_NN2 of_IO reason_NN1 is_VBZ relative_JJ ,_, not_XX absolute_JJ ._. 
It_PPH1 corresponds_VVZ to_II a_AT1 tension_NN1 within_II human_JJ thought_NN1 which_DDQ may_VM persist_VVI indefinitely_RR de_RR21 facto_RR22 ,_, but_CCB which_DDQ has_VHZ no_AT basis_NN1 de_RR21 jure._RR22 (_( 246_MC )_) The_AT two_MC forms_NN2 of_IO reason_NN1 do_VD0 not_XX exist_VVI independently_RR of_IO each_PPX221 other_PPX222 ,_, as_CSA different_JJ forms_NN2 of_IO reality_NN1 ,_, but_CCB exist_VV0 in_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 each_PPX221 other_PPX222 in_II an_AT1 economy_NN1 comparable_JJ to_II Derrida_NP1 's_GE differential_NN1 '_GE stricture_NN1 '_GE ._. 
Unknown_JJ to_II Lvi-Strauss_NP1 ,_, Sartre_NP1 himself_PPX1 had_VHD already_RR proposed_VVN that_CST dialectical_JJ understanding_NN1 itself_PPX1 works_VVZ along_II two_MC paths_NN2 ,_, one_MC1 of_IO '_GE expansion_NN1 '_GE and_CC one_MC1 of_IO '_GE compression_NN1 '_GE ,_, which_DDQ suggests_VVZ that_CST having_VHG separated_VVN dialectical_JJ from_II analytical_JJ reason_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 had_VHD then_RT to_TO reintroduce_VVI the_AT latter_DA under_II a_AT1 new_JJ guise_NN1 ._. 
The_AT argument_NN1 about_II the_AT relation_NN1 of_IO the_AT different_JJ kinds_NN2 of_IO reason_NN1 to_II each_PPX221 other_PPX222 will_VM doubtless_RR (_( and_CC necessarily_RR )_) continue_VV0 without_IW resolution_NN1 ;_; what_DDQ is_VBZ important_JJ in_II the_AT present_JJ context_NN1 is_VBZ that_CST ,_, in_II rearticulating_VVG the_AT possibility_NN1 that_CST there_EX is_VBZ no_AT absolute_JJ difference_NN1 between_II the_AT two_MC ,_, Lvi-Strauss_NP1 puts_VVZ into_II question_NN1 Sartre_NP1 's_GE definitions_NN2 of_IO man_NN1 ,_, human_JJ history_NN1 ,_, and_CC finally_RR his_APPGE concept_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 in_RR21 toto_RR22 all_DB of_IO which_DDQ are_VBR predicated_VVN on_II the_AT dialectic_NN1 ._. 
If_CS conflict_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT motive_NN1 force_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ,_, and_CC history_NN1 a_AT1 series_NN of_IO progressive_JJ dialectical_JJ totalizations_NN2 ,_, then_RT Sartre_NP1 claims_VVZ that_CST what_DDQ he_PPHS1 calls_NN2 '_GE backward_JJ societies_NN2 '_GE have_VH0 existed_VVN in_II a_AT1 state_NN1 of_IO equilibrium_NN1 and_CC are_VBR therefore_RR without_IW history_NN1 ._. 
He_PPHS1 writes_VVZ :_: There_EX is_VBZ no_AT logical_JJ (_( dialectical_JJ )_) absurdity_NN1 in_II the_AT idea_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 country_NN1 with_IW no_AT History_NN1 ,_, where_CS human_JJ groups_NN2 would_VM vegetate_VVI and_CC never_RR break_VVI out_II21 of_II22 a_AT1 cycle_NN1 of_IO repetition_NN1 ,_, producing_VVG their_APPGE lives_NN2 with_IW primitive_JJ techniques_NN2 and_CC instruments_NN2 and_CC knowing_VVG absolutely_RR nothing_PN1 of_IO one_PPX121 another_PPX122 (_( I_ZZ1 ,_, 126_MC )_) ._. 
In_II the_AT background_NN1 here_RL is_VBZ Hegel_NP1 ._. 
According_II21 to_II22 Sartre_NP1 ,_, history_NN1 is_VBZ only_RR born_VVN from_II a_AT1 sudden_JJ imbalance_NN1 of_IO scarcity_NN1 which_DDQ disrupts_VVZ all_DB levels_NN2 of_IO society_NN1 and_CC initiates_VVZ conflict_NN1 and_CC therefore_RR progression_NN1 ._. 
Many_DA2 have_VH0 objected_VVN that_CST this_DD1 analysis_NN1 is_VBZ hardly_RR Marxist_JJ insofar_CS21 as_CS22 Marxism_NN1 takes_VVZ the_AT form_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 analysis_NN1 of_IO the_AT misappropriation_NN1 of_IO surplus_JJ value_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB Lvi-Strauss_NP1 rather_RR objects_VVZ to_II the_AT ethnocentrism_NN1 of_IO Sartre_NP1 's_GE argument_NN1 ,_, for_IF it_PPH1 means_VVZ that_DD1 '_VBZ man_NN1 '_GE ,_, the_AT constituents_NN2 of_IO whom_PNQO should_VM have_VHI been_VBN the_AT result_NN1 and_CC product_NN1 of_IO Sartre_NP1 's_GE anthropology_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ defined_VVN in_II advance_NN1 in_II31 terms_II32 of_II33 the_AT dialectic_NN1 as_CSA historical_JJ humanity_NN1 ,_, with_IW history_NN1 effectively_RR restricted_VVN to_II societies_NN2 of_IO the_AT West_ND1 ._. 
The_AT rest_NN1 are_VBR excluded_VVN ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ exactly_RR this_DD1 assumption_NN1 ,_, however_RR ,_, that_DD1 shows_VVZ the_AT extent_NN1 to_II which_DDQ Western_JJ society_NN1 is_VBZ indistinguishable_JJ from_II all_DB other_JJ cultures_NN2 ,_, for_IF each_DD1 ,_, according_II21 to_II22 Lvi-Strauss_NP1 ,_, has_VHZ always_RR assumed_VVN that_CST it_PPH1 represents_VVZ the_AT full_JJ meaning_NN1 and_CC significance_NN1 of_IO human_JJ society_NN1 :_: a_AT1 good_JJ deal_NN1 of_IO egocentricity_NN1 and_CC naivety_NN1 is_VBZ necessary_JJ to_TO believe_VVI that_DD1 man_NN1 has_VHZ taken_VVN refuge_NN1 in_II a_AT1 single_JJ one_PN1 of_IO the_AT historical_JJ or_CC geographical_JJ modes_NN2 of_IO his_APPGE existence_NN1 ,_, when_CS the_AT truth_NN1 about_II man_NN1 resides_VVZ in_II the_AT system_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE differences_NN2 and_CC common_JJ properties._NNU (_( 249_MC )_) Sartre_NP1 's_GE ethnocentricity_NN1 derives_VVZ from_II the_AT whole_JJ project_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE existentialism_NN1 and_CC his_APPGE phenomenological_JJ definition_NN1 of_IO man_NN1 in_II31 terms_II32 of_II33 the_AT experiencing_VVG self_NN1 defined_VVN against_II an_AT1 other_JJ ._. 
Lvi-Strauss_NP1 suggests_VVZ that_CST as_II a_AT1 science_NN1 anthropology_NN1 should_VM be_VBI attempting_VVG not_XX to_TO provide_VVI a_AT1 definition_NN1 of_IO man_NN1 as_CSA he_PPHS1 is_VBZ known_VVN experientially_RR in_II our_APPGE own_DA society_NN1 an_AT1 unscientific_JJ subjectivism_NN1 but_CCB should_VM rather_RR begin_VVI by_II '_GE dissolving_JJ '_GE him_PPHO1 ._. 
Here_RL we_PPIS2 encounter_VV0 the_AT first_MD attempt_NN1 to_TO undo_VVI the_AT category_NN1 of_IO '_GE man_NN1 '_GE ,_, an_AT1 enterprise_NN1 which_DDQ has_VHZ caused_VVN more_DAR distress_NN1 than_CSN most_DAT in_II the_AT recent_JJ history_NN1 of_IO the_AT social_JJ sciences_NN2 ._. 
Lvi-Strauss_NP1 '_GE point_NN1 here_RL ,_, however_RR ,_, is_VBZ simply_RR the_AT objection_NN1 that_CST Sartre_NP1 defines_58 '_GE man_NN1 '_GE in_II advance_NN1 ,_, predetermined_VVN by_II the_AT particular_JJ experience_NN1 of_IO what_DDQ it_PPH1 is_VBZ to_TO be_VBI a_AT1 man_NN1 in_II twentieth-century_JJ post-war_JJ French_JJ society_NN1 ._. 
The_AT assumption_NN1 that_CST one_PN1 's_GE own_DA experience_NN1 ,_, one_PN1 's_GE own_DA gender_NN1 ,_, one_PN1 's_GE own_DA society_NN1 ,_, constitutes_VVZ the_AT sole_JJ reality_NN1 is_VBZ in_II fact_NN1 the_AT very_JJ antithesis_NN1 of_IO the_AT whole_JJ concept_NN1 of_IO any_DD anthropology_NN1 ._. 
Sartre_NP1 ,_, as_CSA Simon_NP1 Clarke_NP1 argues_VVZ ,_, '_" takes_VVZ the_AT conscious_JJ rationalization_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE own_DA culture_NN1 for_IF the_AT ultimate_JJ meaning_NN1 of_IO humanity_NN1 '_GE ._. 
But_CCB how_RRQ can_VM Sartre_NP1 claim_VVI to_II found_VVD a_AT1 general_JJ anthropology_NN1 when_CS he_PPHS1 defines_VVZ it_PPH1 solely_RR in_II31 terms_II32 of_II33 his_APPGE own_DA society_NN1 ?_? 
As_CS31 soon_CS32 as_CS33 Lvi-Strauss_NP1 shows_VVZ that_CST the_AT experience_NN1 on_II which_DDQ Sartre_NP1 bases_VVZ his_APPGE philosophy_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 universal_JJ one_PN1 ,_, then_RT the_AT general_JJ inferences_NN2 for_IF all_DB humanity_NN1 that_CST he_PPHS1 draws_VVZ from_II it_PPH1 can_VM no_RR21 longer_RR22 be_VBI justified_VVN ._. 
Sartre_NP1 's_GE existential_JJ consciousness_NN1 can_VM not_XX be_VBI dehistoricized_VVN into_II a_AT1 general_JJ foundation_NN1 for_IF a_AT1 concept_NN1 of_IO History_NN1 ._. 
Having_VHG questioned_VVN the_AT basis_NN1 of_IO Sartre_NP1 's_GE definition_NN1 of_IO man_NN1 and_CC the_AT human_NN1 according_II21 to_II22 the_AT categories_NN2 of_IO civilization_NN1 and_CC primitivism_NN1 ,_, Lvi-Strauss_NP1 focuses_VVZ on_II this_DD1 relation_NN1 to_II history_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 can_VM not_XX ,_, he_PPHS1 argues_VVZ ,_, be_VBI tied_VVN to_II the_AT notion_NN1 of_IO '_GE man_NN1 '_GE as_CS21 if_CS22 they_PPHS2 were_VBDR images_NN2 of_IO each_PPX221 other_PPX222 :_: We_PPIS2 need_VV0 only_RR recognize_VVI that_DD1 history_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 method_NN1 with_IW no_AT distinct_JJ object_NN1 corresponding_VVG to_II it_PPH1 to_TO reject_VVI the_AT equivalence_NN1 between_II the_AT notion_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 and_CC the_AT notion_NN1 of_IO humanity_NN1 which_DDQ some_DD have_VH0 tried_VVN to_TO foist_NN1 on_II us_PPIO2 with_IW the_AT unavowed_JJ aim_NN1 of_IO making_VVG historicity_NN1 the_AT last_MD refuge_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 transcendental_JJ humanism_NN1 :_: as_CS21 if_CS22 men_NN2 could_VM regain_VVI the_AT illusion_NN1 of_IO liberty_NN1 on_II the_AT plane_NN1 of_IO the_AT '_" we_PPIS2 '_GE merely_RR by_II giving_VVG up_RP the_AT '_" I_ZZ1 's_VBZ that_CST are_VBR too_RG obviously_RR wanting_VVG in_II consistency._NNU (_( 262_MC )_) In_II other_JJ words_NN2 ,_, Sartre_NP1 's_GE attempt_NN1 to_TO combine_VVI Marxism_NN1 with_IW existentialist_JJ subjectivity_NN1 can_VM not_XX resolve_VVI its_APPGE difficulties_NN2 through_II a_AT1 shift_NN1 from_II economism_NN1 to_II history_NN1 ,_, for_IF history_NN1 implicitly_RR continues_VVZ to_TO fulfil_VVI the_AT same_DA function_NN1 anyway_RR ._. 
Here_RL Lvi-Strauss_NP1 argues_VVZ that_CST behind_II the_AT original_JJ question_NN1 from_II which_DDQ Sartre_NP1 began_VVD how_RRQ can_VM man_NN1 make_VV0 history_NN1 if_CS history_NN1 makes_VVZ him_PPHO1 ?_? lurks_VVZ another_DD1 :_: if_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ man_NN1 who_PNQS makes_VVZ history_NN1 ,_, how_RRQ does_58 '_GE History_NN1 '_GE gain_VV0 its_APPGE exorbitant_JJ status_NN1 as_II the_AT desired_JJ ,_, unachievable_JJ object_NN1 of_IO Sartre_NP1 's_GE text_NN1 ?_? 
His_APPGE emphasis_NN1 on_II the_AT primacy_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 means_VVZ that_CST he_PPHS1 forms_NN2 '_GE an_AT1 almost_RR mystical_JJ conception_NN1 of_IO it_PPH1 '_VBZ ._. 
Sartre_NP1 seems_VVZ to_TO have_VHI remembered_VVN only_RR half_DB of_IO Marx_NP1 's_GE and_CC Freud_NP1 's_GE combined_JJ lesson_NN1 ._. 
They_PPHS2 have_VH0 taught_VVN us_PPIO2 that_DD1 man_NN1 has_VHZ meaning_NN1 only_RR on_II the_AT condition_NN1 that_CST he_PPHS1 view_VV0 himself_PPX1 as_CSA meaningful_JJ ._. 
So_RG far_RR I_PPIS1 agree_VV0 with_IW Sartre_NP1 ._. 
But_CCB it_PPH1 must_VM be_VBI added_VVN that_CST this_DD1 meaning_NN1 is_VBZ never_RR the_AT right_JJ one_PN1 :_: superstructures_NN2 are_VBR faulty_JJ acts_NN2 which_DDQ have_VH0 '_GE made_VVD it_PPH1 '_VBZ socially_RR ._. 
Hence_RR it_PPH1 is_VBZ vain_JJ to_TO go_VVI to_II historical_JJ consciousness_NN1 for_IF the_AT truest_JJT meaning._NNU (_( 253_MC )_) Historical_JJ consciousness_NN1 is_VBZ necessarily_RR ideological_JJ ,_, even_CS21 if_CS22 dialectical_JJ ,_, and_CC can_VM never_RR in_II itself_PPX1 provide_VV0 the_AT one_MC1 true_JJ meaning_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ._. 
Despite_II Sartre_NP1 's_GE reiteration_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ man_NN1 who_PNQS makes_VVZ it_PPH1 ,_, history_NN1 increasingly_RR assumes_VVZ its_APPGE own_DA ontological_JJ status_NN1 in_II the_AT Critiques_NN2 ._. 
Above_II all_DB ,_, Lvi-Strauss_NP1 questions_VVZ its_APPGE status_NN1 as_CSA totalization_NN1 ._. 
The_AT idea_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 as_II the_AT totalization_NN1 of_IO totalizations_NN2 does_VDZ not_XX work_VVI ._. 
How_RGQ total_JJ ,_, he_PPHS1 asks_VVZ in_II a_AT1 critique_NN1 of_IO totalization_NN1 which_DDQ Derrida_NP1 would_VM characterize_VVI as_CSA his_APPGE first_MD '_GE classical_JJ '_GE formulation_NN1 ,_, can_VM the_AT totalization_NN1 be_VBI ?_? 
Can_VM it_PPH1 include_VVI every_AT1 historical_JJ fact_NN1 ?_? 
History_NN1 names_VVZ the_AT process_NN1 of_IO constituting_VVG historical_JJ facts_NN2 ,_, and_CC ,_, particularly_RR ,_, of_IO their_APPGE selection_NN1 ._. 
A_AT1 history_NN1 that_CST included_VVD everything_PN1 would_VM amount_NN1 to_II chaos_NN1 :_: In_CS41 so_CS42 far_CS43 as_CS44 history_NN1 aspires_VVZ to_II meaning_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ doomed_VVN to_TO select_VVI regions_NN2 ,_, periods_NN2 ,_, groups_NN2 of_IO men_NN2 and_CC individuals_NN2 in_II these_DD2 groups_NN2 and_CC to_TO make_VVI them_PPHO2 stand_VVI out_RP ,_, as_CSA discontinuous_JJ figures_NN2 ,_, against_II a_AT1 continuity_NN1 barely_RR good_JJ enough_RR to_TO be_VBI used_VVN as_II a_AT1 backdrop_NN1 ._. 
A_AT1 truly_RR total_JJ history_NN1 would_VM cancel_VVI itself_PPX1 out_RP its_APPGE product_NN1 would_VM be_VBI nought._NNU (_( 257_MC )_) Meaning_NN1 works_VVZ through_II a_AT1 form_NN1 of_IO metonymy_NN1 ,_, distinguishing_VVG between_II elements_NN2 in_II31 terms_II32 of_II33 significance_NN1 and_CC insignificance_NN1 ,_, and_CC that_DD1 is_VBZ why_RRQ it_PPH1 must_VM always_RR be_VBI partial_JJ in_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 any_DD text_NN1 it_PPH1 interprets_VVZ ._. 
(_( We_PPIS2 might_VM compare_VVI this_DD1 to_II the_AT way_NN1 in_II which_DDQ ,_, in_II Sartre_NP1 's_GE later_JJR text_NN1 ,_, the_AT synecdoche_NN1 of_IO the_AT singular-universal_JJ insistently_RR slides_VVZ into_II the_AT singularity_NN1 of_IO the_AT event_NN1 )_) ._. 
Totalization_NN1 in_II the_AT first_MD Critique_NN1 ,_, Lvi-Strauss_NP1 suggests_VVZ ,_, can_VM only_RR create_VVI its_APPGE meaning_NN1 by_II selection_NN1 through_II such_DA metonymic_JJ devices_NN2 of_IO exclusion_NN1 ,_, that_REX21 is_REX22 ,_, by_II founding_VVG itself_PPX1 on_II an_AT1 ethnocentric_JJ absence_NN1 ._. 
Historical_JJ consciousness_NN1 dehistoricizes_VVZ by_II shifting_JJ diachrony_NN1 into_II a_AT1 single_JJ synchronic_JJ totality_NN1 :_: And_CC so_RR we_PPIS2 end_VV0 up_RP in_II the_AT paradox_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 system_NN1 which_DDQ invokes_VVZ the_AT criterion_NN1 of_IO historical_JJ consciousness_NN1 as_II a_AT1 means_NN for_IF distinguishing_VVG the_AT '_GE primitive_NN1 '_GE from_II the_AT ,_, civilized'_JJ but_CCB contrary_II21 to_II22 its_APPGE claim_NN1 is_VBZ itself_PPX1 ahistorical_JJ ._. 
It_PPH1 offers_VVZ not_XX a_AT1 concrete_JJ image_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 but_CCB an_AT1 abstract_JJ schema_NN1 of_IO men_NN2 making_VVG history_NN1 of_IO such_DA a_AT1 kind_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 can_VM manifest_VVI itself_PPX1 in_II the_AT trend_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE lives_NN2 as_II a_AT1 synchronic_JJ totality_NN1 ._. 
Its_APPGE position_NN1 in_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 history_NN1 is_VBZ therefore_RR the_AT same_DA as_CSA that_DD1 of_IO primitives_NN2 to_II the_AT eternal_JJ past_NN1 :_: in_II Sartre_NP1 's_GE system_NN1 ,_, history_NN1 plays_VVZ exactly_RR the_AT part_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 myth._NNU (_( 254_MC )_) History_NN1 ,_, far_RR from_II constituting_VVG a_AT1 privileged_JJ form_NN1 of_IO (_( historical_JJ )_) knowledge_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ simply_RR the_AT myth_NN1 of_IO modern_JJ man_NN1 ,_, and_CC merely_RR amounts_VVZ to_II a_AT1 method_NN1 of_IO analysis_NN1 ._. 
For_IF all_DB its_APPGE stress_NN1 on_II history_NN1 and_CC totalization_NN1 as_CSA process_NN1 ,_, Sartre_NP1 's_GE argument_NN1 is_VBZ structured_VVN through_II the_AT creation_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 form_NN1 of_IO synchronicity_NN1 ._. 
Lvi-Strauss_NP1 demonstrates_VVZ this_DD1 through_II his_APPGE well-known_JJ discussion_NN1 of_IO the_AT function_NN1 of_IO the_AT category_NN1 of_IO time_NNT1 ._. 
Like_II all_DB models_NN2 of_IO knowledge_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 suggests_VVZ ,_, history_NN1 requires_VVZ a_AT1 code_NN1 to_TO analyse_VVI its_APPGE object_NN1 ,_, and_CC for_IF most_DAT historians_NN2 this_DD1 code_NN1 consists_VVZ in_II chronology_NN1 ._. 
The_AT use_NN1 of_IO chronology_NN1 in_II historical_JJ writing_NN1 ,_, or_CC in_II literary_JJ history_NN1 ,_, gives_VVZ the_AT illusion_NN1 that_CST the_AT whole_NN1 operates_VVZ by_II a_AT1 uniform_NN1 ,_, continuous_JJ progression_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 linear_JJ series_NN in_II which_DDQ each_DD1 event_NN1 takes_VVZ its_APPGE place_NN1 ._. 
History_NN1 is_VBZ thus_RR a_AT1 process_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 continuous_JJ unfolding_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB in_II fact_NN1 ,_, Lvi-Strauss_NP1 argues_VVZ ,_, the_AT process_NN1 model_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 is_VBZ an_AT1 illusion_NN1 ,_, for_IF even_RR dates_NN2 do_VD0 not_XX work_VVI like_II that_DD1 ._. 
Dates_NN2 only_RR work_VV0 by_II being_VBG a_AT1 member_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 class_NN1 ._. 
In_II itself_PPX1 ,_, a_AT1 date_NN1 tells_VVZ us_PPIO2 nothing_PN1 :_: it_PPH1 only_RR takes_VVZ on_RP meaning_VVG when_RRQ it_PPH1 is_VBZ part_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 series_NN ._. 
However_RRQV that_DD1 class_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX necessarily_RR correspond_VVI to_II other_JJ sets_NN2 of_IO dates_NN2 ,_, periods_NN2 ,_, millennia_NNT2 ,_, ages_NN2 ,_, etc_RA ._. 
History_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 discontinuous_JJ set_NN1 composed_VVN of_IO domains_NN2 of_IO history_NN1 ,_, each_DD1 of_IO which_DDQ is_VBZ defined_VVN by_II a_AT1 characteristic_JJ frequency_NN1 and_CC by_II a_AT1 differential_JJ coding_NN1 of_IO before_RT and_CC after_RT ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ no_AT more_RGR possible_JJ to_TO pass_VVI between_II the_AT dates_NN2 which_DDQ compose_VV0 the_AT different_JJ domains_NN2 than_CSN it_PPH1 is_VBZ to_TO do_VDI so_RR between_II natural_JJ and_CC irrational_JJ numbers_NN2 ._. 
Or_CC more_RGR precisely_RR :_: the_AT dates_NN2 appropriate_VV0 to_II each_DD1 class_NN1 are_VBR irrational_JJ to_II all_DB those_DD2 of_IO other_JJ classes._NNU (_( 259_MC 60_MC )_) So-called_JJ historical_JJ continuity_NN1 is_VBZ therefore_RR often_RR fraudulently_RR constructed_VVN out_II21 of_II22 discontinuous_JJ sets_NN2 which_DDQ each_DD1 have_VH0 different_JJ temporalities_NN2 ._. 
History_NN1 can_VM neither_RR be_VBI total_JJ ,_, nor_CC a_AT1 simple_JJ series_NN of_IO facts_NN2 ,_, nor_CC a_AT1 continuity_NN1 ._. 
The_AT fact_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 must_VM always_RR involve_VVI codification_NN1 and_CC therefore_RR also_RR interpretation_NN1 means_VVZ that_DD1 '_VBZ historical_JJ knowledge_NN1 has_VHZ no_AT claim_NN1 to_TO be_VBI opposed_VVN to_II other_JJ forms_NN2 of_IO knowledge_NN1 as_II a_AT1 supremely_RR privileged_JJ one_MC1 '_GE (_( 263_MC )_) ._. 
Historicity_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 mode_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 for_IF some_DD societies_NN2 but_CCB can_VM not_XX ipso_RR21 facto_RR22 claim_VVI to_TO be_VBI the_AT fundamental_JJ basis_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 for_IF all_DB of_IO them_PPHO2 a_AT1 point_NN1 that_CST was_VBDZ to_TO be_VBI re-emphasized_VVN by_II Foucault_NP1 in_II The_AT Order_NN1 of_IO Things_NN2 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ thus_RR far_RR from_II the_AT case_NN1 that_CST the_AT search_NN1 for_IF intelligibility_NN1 comes_VVZ to_II an_AT1 end_NN1 with_IW history_NN1 as_II such_DA ._. 
Lvi-Strauss_NP1 therefore_RR makes_VVZ three_MC major_JJ criticisms_NN2 of_IO Sartre_NP1 's_GE concept_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ._. 
In_II the_AT first_MD place_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 contests_VVZ its_APPGE equation_NN1 with_IW any_DD anthropological_JJ definition_NN1 of_IO '_GE man_NN1 '_GE ;_; in_II the_AT second_NNT1 ,_, he_PPHS1 argues_VVZ that_CST Sartre_NP1 's_GE description_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 as_CSA making_VVG up_RP one_PN1 '_GE History_NN1 '_GE with_IW one_MC1 meaning_NN1 is_VBZ only_RR achieved_VVN through_II the_AT exclusion_NN1 of_IO all_DB other_JJ histories_NN2 with_IW other_JJ meanings_NN2 :_: the_AT totalization_NN1 can_VM only_RR totalize_VVI if_CSW everything_PN1 which_DDQ remains_VVZ other_JJ to_II it_PPH1 is_VBZ excluded_VVN ._. 
Sartre_NP1 's_GE definition_NN1 is_VBZ therefore_RR tautological_JJ :_: it_PPH1 is_VBZ one_MC1 history_NN1 because_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ (_( only_RR )_) one_MC1 history_NN1 ._. 
Specifically_RR ,_, Sartre_NP1 creates_VVZ a_AT1 single_JJ history_NN1 by_II excluding_VVG all_DB histories_NN2 except_CS21 that_CS22 of_IO the_AT West_ND1 ;_; his_APPGE history_NN1 as_CSA totalization_NN1 can_VM therefore_RR only_RR work_VVI through_II a_AT1 determined_JJ ethnocentricity_NN1 ._. 
In_II the_AT third_MD place_NN1 ,_, even_RR in_II its_APPGE own_DA terms_NN2 ,_, the_AT concept_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 as_II a_AT1 continuous_JJ development_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 progressive_JJ totalization_NN1 of_IO totalizations_NN2 ,_, is_VBZ dependent_JJ on_II a_AT1 notion_NN1 of_IO chronology_NN1 which_DDQ assumes_VVZ a_AT1 synchronic_JJ homogeneous_JJ notion_NN1 of_IO time_NNT1 ._. 
But_CCB even_RR historical_JJ chronology_NN1 works_VVZ through_II discontinuous_JJ sets_NN2 ,_, the_AT elements_NN2 in_II each_DD1 class_NN1 being_VBG defined_VVN only_RR differentially_RR in_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 the_AT others_NN2 in_II its_APPGE class_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 final_JJ criticism_NN1 amounts_VVZ to_II the_AT challenge_NN1 that_CST Sartre_NP1 's_GE history_NN1 can_VM only_RR ever_RR be_VBI theorized_VVN as_CSA totalization_NN1 insofar_CS21 as_CS22 it_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN conceptualized_VVN as_II a_AT1 synchronic_JJ form_NN1 ._. 
While_CS the_AT criticism_NN1 that_CST Lvi-Strauss_NP1 ,_, structuralism_NN1 emphasizes_VVZ the_AT synchronic_JJ at_II the_AT expense_NN1 of_IO the_AT diachronic_JJ has_VHZ assumed_VVN the_AT status_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 critical_JJ truism_NN1 ,_, this_DD1 in_II fact_NN1 repeats_VVZ the_AT substance_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE critique_NN1 of_IO Sartre_NP1 ,_, namely_REX that_CST the_AT latter_DA attempted_JJ to_TO transform_VVI history_NN1 into_II a_AT1 space_NN1 of_IO synchronicity_NN1 ._. 
Indeed_RR totality_NN1 in_II both_DB2 Critiques_NN2 presupposes_VVZ a_AT1 homogeneous_JJ temporality_NN1 :_: the_AT singular_JJ universal_JJ could_VM only_RR ever_RR work_VVI by_II presupposing_VVG what_DDQ Althusser_NN1 would_VM call_VVI an_AT1 '_GE essential_JJ section_NN1 '_GE ._. 
Lvi-Strauss_NP1 himself_PPX1 ,_, like_II Althusser_NP1 and_CC Foucault_NP1 ,_, was_VBDZ preoccupied_JJ with_IW the_AT conceptualization_NN1 of_IO forms_NN2 of_IO heterogeneous_JJ temporality_NN1 that_CST consistently_RR elude_VV0 and_CC trouble_VV0 all_DB theorization_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 as_II a_AT1 homogeneous_JJ diachrony_NN1 ._. 
Lvi-Strauss_NP1 '_GE attack_NN1 ,_, together_RL with_IW Sartre_NP1 's_GE own_DA theoretical_JJ difficulties_NN2 which_DDQ have_VH0 already_RR been_VBN charted_VVN ,_, was_VBDZ effective_JJ enough_RR to_TO be_VBI quite_RG devastating_JJ to_II the_AT project_NN1 of_IO the_AT Critique_NN1 which_DDQ was_VBDZ never_RR completed_VVN ._. 
Sartre_NP1 took_VVD four_MC years_NNT2 to_TO respond_VVI ,_, and_CC when_CS the_AT reply_NN1 eventually_RR came_VVD even_RR his_APPGE most_RGT sympathetic_JJ admirers_NN2 agreed_VVD that_CST it_PPH1 did_VDD not_XX succeed_VVI in_II answering_VVG the_AT main_JJ criticisms_NN2 ._. 
Lvi-Strauss_NP1 '_GE objections_NN2 to_II Sartre_NP1 's_GE theory_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 on_II the_AT grounds_NN2 of_IO its_APPGE ethnocentrism_NN1 was_VBDZ certainly_RR to_II the_AT point_NN1 ,_, demonstrating_VVG that_CST one_MC1 lesson_NN1 of_IO Sartre_NP1 's_GE Herculean_JJ attempt_NN1 to_TO make_VVI history_NN1 truth_NN1 ,_, and_CC to_TO give_VVI it_PPH1 one_MC1 meaning_NN1 ,_, was_VBDZ the_AT relation_NN1 of_IO such_DA history_NN1 to_II Western_JJ cultural_JJ imperialism_NN1 ._. 
At_II the_AT same_DA time_NNT1 we_PPIS2 should_VM also_RR recall_VVI that_DD1 ,_, as_CSA Levinas_NN2 puts_VVZ it_PPH1 '_VBZ the_AT best_JJT thing_NN1 about_II philosophy_NN1 is_VBZ that_CST it_PPH1 fails_NN2% '_GE ._. 
To_II the_AT extent_NN1 that_CST Sartre_NP1 's_GE ontology_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX succeed_VVI in_II totalizing_VVG history_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 remains_VVZ open_JJ to_II its_APPGE irreducible_JJ otherness._NNU perhaps_RR this_DD1 is_VBZ one_MC1 reason_NN1 why_RRQ ,_, despite_II the_AT Eurocentrism_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE intended_JJ historical_JJ schema_NN1 ,_, Sartre_NP1 himself_PPX1 could_VM certainly_RR not_XX be_VBI accused_VVN of_IO ethnocentrism_NN1 in_II his_APPGE politics_NN1 ;_; already_RR the_AT first_MD Critique_NN1 contains_VVZ substantial_JJ analyses_NN2 of_IO the_AT political_JJ and_CC psychological_JJ structures_NN2 of_IO colonialism_NN1 and_CC racism_NN1 ,_, even_CS21 if_CS22 they_PPHS2 have_VH0 to_TO be_VBI ,_, as_CSA always_RR ,_, '_GE dissolved_JJ in_II History_NN1 '_GE (_( I_ZZ1 ,_, 716_MC )_) ._. 
But_CCB this_DD1 still_RR allows_VVZ Sartre_NP1 to_TO argue_VVI ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, for_IF the_AT legitimacy_NN1 of_IO the_AT use_NN1 of_IO violence_NN1 by_II colonized_JJ peoples_NN2 against_II their_APPGE oppressors_NN2 ,_, thus_RR anticipating_VVG Fanon_NP1 's_GE dictum_NN1 that_CST colonization_NN1 was_VBDZ achieved_VVN by_II violence_NN1 and_CC must_VM therefore_RR be_VBI overcome_JJ with_IW it_PPH1 ._. 
Aronson_NN1 sees_VVZ Sartre_NP1 's_GE turn_NN1 to_II the_AT cause_NN1 of_IO resisting_VVG colonial_JJ oppression_NN1 as_II an_AT1 act_NN1 of_IO '_GE self-flagellation_NN1 '_GE and_CC a_AT1 product_NN1 of_IO politico-theoretical_JJ despair_NN1 ,_, but_CCB this_DD1 passes_VVZ over_II the_AT historical_JJ and_CC political_JJ context_NN1 in_II which_DDQ Sartre_NP1 ,_, and_CC Les_NP1 Temps_NN2 modernes_NN2 ,_, played_VVD a_AT1 leading_JJ role_NN1 in_II the_AT opposition_NN1 to_II the_AT Algerian_JJ war_NN1 ._. 
In_II retrospect_NN1 these_DD2 concerns_NN2 now_RT seem_VV0 a_AT1 much_RR bolder_JJR move_NN1 ,_, constituting_VVG an_AT1 important_JJ political_JJ lead_NN1 which_DDQ was_VBDZ to_TO be_VBI continued_VVN in_II the_AT resistance_NN1 to_II the_AT war_NN1 in_II South-East_ND1 Asia_NP1 in_II the_AT sixties_MC2 and_CC early_JJ seventies_MC2 ._. 
But_CCB Sartre_NP1 's_GE courageous_JJ intervention_NN1 against_II French_NN1 and_CC other_JJ colonialisms_NN2 could_VM not_XX have_VHI a_AT1 corresponding_JJ theoretical_JJ impact_NN1 so_RG long_RR as_CSA he_PPHS1 retained_VVD his_APPGE historicist_NN1 Marxist_JJ framework_NN1 ._. 
For_IF his_APPGE unitary_JJ theory_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 has_VHZ the_AT effect_NN1 of_IO disallowing_VVG radical_JJ attempts_NN2 at_II rewriting_VVG or_CC retrieving_VVG other_JJ histories_NN2 excluded_VVN by_II the_AT West_ND1 ._. 
Although_CS it_PPH1 was_VBDZ taken_VVN by_II many_DA2 as_CSA an_AT1 attack_NN1 on_II history_NN1 as_II such_DA ,_, it_PPH1 was_VBDZ the_AT critique_NN1 of_IO Marxist_JJ historicism_NN1 initiated_VVN by_II Althusser_NN1 that_CST enabled_VVD new_JJ political_JJ possibilities_NN2 in_II this_DD1 direction_NN1 ._. 
The_AT scientific_JJ critique_NN1 of_IO historicism_NN1 Before_II Sartre_NP1 had_VHD even_RR replied_VVN to_II Levi-Strauss_NP1 criticisms_NN2 ,_, Althusser_NP1 had_VHD published_VVN for_IF Marx_NP1 (_( 1965_MC )_) ,_, a_AT1 work_NN1 which_DDQ ,_, together_RL with_IW the_AT later_JJR volume_NN1 Reading_NP1 Capital_NN1 (_( 1968_MC )_) ,_, far_RR from_II defending_VVG Sartre_NP1 's_GE Marxism_NN1 from_II the_AT structuralist_JJ challenge_NN1 ,_, completed_VVD the_AT move_NN1 against_II it_PPH1 ,_, and_CC offered_VVD a_AT1 new_JJ interpretation_NN1 of_IO Marxism_NN1 from_II which_DDQ humanist_JJ existentialism_NN1 and_CC Hegelianism_NN1 had_VHD been_VBN resolutely_RR purged_VVN ,_, with_IW Sartre_NP1 's_GE voluntarism_NN1 replaced_VVN by_II a_AT1 more_RGR mediated_JJ form_NN1 of_IO economism_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ easy_JJ to_TO represent_VVI Althusser_NP1 's_GE intervention_NN1 purely_RR in_II31 terms_II32 of_II33 structuralism_NN1 ,_, but_CCB to_TO suggest_VVI that_CST this_DD1 was_VBDZ its_APPGE only_JJ significant_JJ intellectual_JJ context_NN1 is_VBZ misleading_JJ ._. 
If_CS his_APPGE work_NN1 needs_VVZ to_TO be_VBI considered_VVN in_II the_AT context_NN1 of_IO the_AT contemporary_JJ politics_NN1 of_IO the_AT Communist_JJ Party_NN1 ,_, as_CSA several_DA2 commentators_NN2 have_VH0 stressed_VVN ,_, it_PPH1 also_RR requires_VVZ reference_NN1 to_II work_NN1 done_VDN in_II the_AT history_NN1 of_IO the_AT sciences_NN2 ,_, particularly_RR that_DD1 of_IO Gaston_NP1 Bachelard_NP1 in_II the_AT history_NN1 of_IO physics_NN1 and_CC chemistry_NN1 ,_, his_APPGE pupil_NN1 Georges_NP1 Canguilhem_NP1 in_II the_AT life_NN1 sciences_NN2 ,_, and_CC Jean_NP1 Cavaills_NP2 in_II mathematics_NN1 ._. 
All_DB four_MC ,_, together_RL with_IW Althusser_NP1 's_GE pupil_NN1 ,_, Michel_NP1 Foucault_NP1 ,_, worked_VVD within_II an_AT1 epistemological_JJ tradition_NN1 which_DDQ was_VBDZ critical_JJ of_IO the_AT positivism_NN1 which_DDQ ,_, up_II21 to_II22 that_DD1 time_NNT1 ,_, had_VHD dominated_VVN the_AT history_NN1 of_IO the_AT sciences_NN2 ._. 
To_TO represent_VVI Althusser_NP1 's_GE work_NN1 purely_RR as_II a_AT1 '_GE structural_JJ Marxism_NN1 '_GE therefore_RR passes_VVZ over_II the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST there_EX were_VBDR distinct_JJ intellectual_JJ traditions_NN2 in_II France_NP1 whose_DDQGE difference_NN1 was_VBDZ particularly_RR pronounced_VVN in_II their_APPGE respective_JJ philosophies_NN2 of_IO history_NN1 ._. 
Much_DA1 of_IO what_DDQ has_VHZ been_VBN considered_VVN to_TO be_VBI poststructuralism_NN1 's_GE wild_JJ disregard_NN1 for_IF history_NN1 can_VM be_VBI accounted_VVN for_IF by_II the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 was_VBDZ operating_VVG within_II this_DD1 largely_RR unknown_JJ outside_II France_NP1 anti-empiricist_NN1 and_CC anti-positivist_JJ tradition_NN1 ._. 
In_II 1978_MC Foucault_NP1 suggested_VVD that_CST post-war_JJ French_JJ philosophy_NN1 divides_VVZ according_II21 to_II22 a_AT1 line_NN1 '_GE which_DDQ separates_VVZ a_AT1 philosophy_NN1 of_IO experience_NN1 ,_, meaning_VVG and_CC the_AT subject_NN1 from_II a_AT1 philosophy_NN1 of_IO savoir_NN1 ,_, rationality_NN1 and_CC the_AT concept_NN1 '_GE :_: in_II other_JJ words_NN2 ,_, Sartre_NP1 and_CC Merleau-Ponty_NN1 ,_, against_II Cavaills_NP2 ,_, Bachelard_NP1 and_CC Canguilhem_NP1 ,_, or_CC the_AT return-to-Hegel_NN1 of_IO Kojve_NN1 in_II the_AT thirties_MC2 ,_, versus_II the_AT return-to-Rant_NN1 initiated_VVN in_II the_AT philosophy_NN1 of_IO the_AT sciences_NN2 by_II Lon_NP1 Brunschvicg_NP1 in_II the_AT late_JJ nineteenth_MD century_NNT1 ._. 
Long_RR before_II Sartre_NP1 developed_VVD his_APPGE own_DA form_NN1 of_IO Marxist-Hegelian_JJ history_NN1 ,_, Bachelard_NP1 had_VHD been_VBN working_VVG in_II a_AT1 critical_JJ relation_NN1 to_II Hegelian_JJ historicism_NN1 ._. 
What_DDQ was_VBDZ new_JJ in_II Althusser_NP1 was_VBDZ that_DD1 for_IF the_AT first_MD time_NNT1 this_DD1 epistemological_JJ tradition_NN1 was_VBDZ developed_VVN for_IF a_AT1 Marxism_NN1 ._. 
Against_II Sartre_NP1 's_GE claim_NN1 to_TO establish_VVI Marxism_NN1 's_GE truth_NN1 philosophically_RR ,_, Althusser_NP1 reasoned_VVD that_CST if_CS Marxism_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 science_NN1 ,_, then_RT the_AT history_NN1 of_IO Marxism_NN1 ought_VMK to_TO conform_VVI to_II the_AT kind_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 that_CST had_VHD been_VBN developed_VVN for_IF the_AT sciences_NN2 ._. 
The_AT question_NN1 then_RT simply_RR became_VVD whether_CSW it_PPH1 did_VDD or_CC not_XX ._. 
Or_CC so_RR it_PPH1 seemed_VVD ._. 
The_AT difficulties_NN2 in_II which_DDQ Althusser_NP1 subsequently_RR became_VVD enmeshed_VVD were_VBDR the_AT result_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE ignoring_VVG Canguilhem_NP1 's_GE warning_NN1 that_CST although_CS the_AT history_NN1 of_IO science_NN1 takes_VVZ science_NN1 for_IF its_APPGE object_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX itself_PPX1 a_AT1 science_NN1 ,_, and_CC therefore_RR can_VM not_XX claim_VVI to_TO be_VBI value-free_JJ (_( or_CC ,_, in_II Marxist_JJ terms_NN2 ,_, non-ideological_JJ )_) ._. 
As_CSA Gregory_NP1 Elliott_NP1 has_VHZ recently_RR emphasized_VVN ,_, although_CS Althusser_NP1 always_RR presented_VVD himself_PPX1 as_II the_AT figure_NN1 of_IO the_AT rigours_NN2 of_IO orthodoxy_NN1 against_II the_AT eclecticism_NN1 of_IO the_AT existentialists_NN2 ,_, in_II his_APPGE own_DA work_NN1 he_PPHS1 was_VBDZ just_RR as_RG catholic_JJ ,_, allying_VVG Marxism_NN1 with_IW non-Marxist_JJ philosophy_NN1 ,_, even_CS21 if_CS22 it_PPH1 was_VBDZ a_AT1 history_NN1 of_IO science_NN1 to_II which_DDQ ,_, he_PPHS1 claimed_VVD ,_, '_GE French_JJ philosophy_NN1 owes_VVZ its_APPGE renaissance_NN1 in_II the_AT last_MD thirty_MC years_NNT2 '_GE ._. 
II_MC BACHELARD_NP1 AND_CC THE_AT HISTORY_NN1 OF_IO SCIENCE_NN1 Against_II the_AT Hegelian_JJ synthesis_NN1 of_IO all_DB kinds_NN2 of_IO history_NN1 within_II the_AT same_DA developmental_JJ schema_NN1 ,_, Bachelard_NP1 argued_VVD that_CST the_AT history_NN1 of_IO science_NN1 can_VM not_XX be_VBI assimilated_VVN into_II the_AT progressive_JJ evolutionary_JJ form_NN1 commonly_RR ascribed_VVN to_II other_JJ kinds_NN2 of_IO human_JJ history_NN1 ,_, and_CC nor_CC can_VM it_PPH1 be_VBI mapped_VVN on_II a_AT1 one-to-one_JJ basis_NN1 against_II the_AT history_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE age_NN1 ._. 
In_II certain_JJ pure_JJ sciences_NN2 ,_, mathematics_NN1 for_REX21 instance_REX22 ,_, although_CS discoveries_NN2 may_VM enable_VVI changes_NN2 and_CC developments_NN2 of_IO a_AT1 material_NN1 kind_NN1 ,_, their_APPGE occurrence_NN1 can_VM not_XX ipso_RR21 facto_RR22 be_VBI explained_VVN by_II being_VBG related_VVN to_II the_AT allegedly_RR determining_VVG political_JJ and_CC economic_JJ history_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE immediate_JJ era_NN1 ._. 
As_CSA Levi-Strauss_NP1 was_VBDZ to_TO argue_VVI ,_, different_JJ histories_NN2 have_VH0 different_JJ temporalities_NN2 :_: the_AT time_NNT1 scales_NN2 of_IO the_AT sciences_NN2 do_VD0 not_XX work_VVI at_II the_AT same_DA pace_NN1 as_CSA other_JJ forms_NN2 of_IO history_NN1 :_: they_PPHS2 have_VH0 their_APPGE own_DA dynamic_JJ ,_, their_APPGE own_DA rhythm_NN1 ,_, their_APPGE own_DA times_NNT2 ,_, sometimes_RT fast_RR ,_, sometimes_RT slow_VV0 ,_, that_CST do_VD0 not_XX operate_VVI by_II the_AT ordinary_JJ round_NN1 of_IO the_AT year_NNT1 ;_; Bachelard_NP1 was_VBDZ fond_JJ of_IO pointing_VVG out_RP that_CST from_II a_AT1 scientific_JJ point_NN1 of_IO view_NN1 the_AT ten_MC years_NNT2 from_II 1920_MC to_II 1930_MC were_VBDR as_RG long_RR an_AT1 era_NN1 as_II the_AT previous_JJ five_MC hundred_NNO ._. 
This_DD1 unevenness_NN1 of_IO development_NN1 means_VVZ that_CST there_EX can_VM be_VBI no_AT general_JJ history_NN1 of_IO science_NN1 as_II such_DA :_: it_PPH1 is_VBZ uneven_JJ but_CCB it_PPH1 can_VM not_XX be_VBI combined_VVN ._. 
Many_DA2 sciences_NN2 moreover_RR share_VV0 the_AT characteristic_NN1 that_CST a_AT1 major_JJ discovery_NN1 means_VVZ that_CST all_DB other_JJ models_NN2 and_CC theories_NN2 are_VBR simply_RR out_JJ31 of_JJ32 date_JJ33 and_CC have_VH0 to_TO be_VBI discarded_VVN ._. 
From_II the_AT point_NN1 of_IO view_NN1 of_IO the_AT present_NN1 ,_, the_AT past_NN1 has_VHZ to_TO be_VBI excised_VVN ._. 
Contemporary_JJ science_NN1 is_VBZ able_JK to_TO designate_VVI itself_PPX1 ,_, through_II its_APPGE revolutionary_JJ discoveries_NN2 ,_, as_CSA a_AT1 liquidation_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 past_NN1 ._. 
Here_RL discoveries_NN2 are_VBR exhibited_VVN which_DDQ send_VV0 back_RP all_DB recent_JJ history_NN1 to_II the_AT level_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 prehistory_JJ ._. 
Here_RL we_PPIS2 do_VD0 indeed_RR find_VVI an_AT1 example_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 '_GE liquidation_NN1 '_GE of_IO history_NN1 which_DDQ ,_, it_PPH1 will_VM be_VBI recalled_VVN ,_, is_VBZ exactly_RR the_AT accusation_NN1 that_CST Terry_NP1 Eagleton_NP1 makes_VVZ against_II poststructuralism_NN1 ;_; but_CCB the_AT actual_JJ example_NN1 in_II Bachelard_NP1 demonstrates_VVZ how_RGQ much_DA1 more_DAR complex_NN1 the_AT issue_NN1 turns_VVZ out_RP to_TO be_VBI ._. 
Science_NN1 's_GE negative_JJ relation_NN1 to_II the_AT past_NN1 emerges_VVZ as_CSA one_MC1 of_IO its_APPGE most_RGT distinctive_JJ and_CC significant_JJ aspects_NN2 ,_, one_PN1 which_DDQ marks_VVZ a_AT1 complete_JJ break_NN1 with_IW the_AT cumulative_JJ structures_NN2 of_IO the_AT arts_NN2 and_CC social_JJ sciences_NN2 ._. 
It_PPH1 means_VVZ ,_, in_RR21 particular_RR22 ,_, that_CST the_AT temporality_NN1 of_IO science_NN1 can_VM not_XX be_VBI accommodated_VVN to_II the_AT rhythms_NN2 of_IO traditional_JJ historiography_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ has_VHZ not_XX ,_, however_RR ,_, prevented_VVD positivistic_JJ historians_NN2 of_IO science_NN1 from_II writing_VVG its_APPGE history_NN1 solely_RR in_II31 terms_II32 of_II33 precursors_NN2 and_CC anachronistic_JJ anticipations_NN2 of_IO modern_JJ ideas_NN2 in_II early_JJ thinkers_NN2 ,_, as_CS21 if_CS22 science_NN1 unrolled_VVD smoothly_RR and_CC inevitably_RR from_II year_NNT1 to_II year_NNT1 ._. 
The_AT problem_NN1 with_IW this_DD1 approach_NN1 is_VBZ that_CST it_PPH1 overestimates_VVZ the_AT extent_NN1 of_IO narrative_JJ continuity_NN1 in_II the_AT history_NN1 of_IO science_NN1 which_DDQ ,_, according_II21 to_II22 Bachelard_NP1 's_GE examples_NN2 ,_, works_VVZ rather_RR by_II sudden_JJ disruptions_NN2 ,_, discontinuities_NN2 ,_, and_CC entire_JJ reorganizations_NN2 of_IO its_APPGE principles_NN2 ._. 
Science_NN1 is_VBZ forever_RT remaking_VVG its_APPGE own_DA history_NN1 ._. 
As_RG early_RR as_CSA 1934_MC Bachelard_NP1 had_VHD argued_VVN that_CST the_AT revolutionary_JJ changes_NN2 in_II physics_NN1 ,_, such_II21 as_II22 relativity_NN1 theory_NN1 and_CC microphysics_NN2 ,_, meant_VVD that_DD1 science_NN1 itself_PPX1 was_VBDZ currently_RR defined_VVN by_II its_APPGE reaction_NN1 against_II the_AT past_NN1 ,_, and_CC had_VHD become_VVN a_AT1 '_GE philosophy_NN1 of_IO the_AT non_FU ,_, non-Cartesian_JJ ,_, non-Euclidean_NN1 ,_, non-Newtonian_JJ ,_, and_CC non-Baconian_JJ ._. 
These_DD2 major_JJ transformations_NN2 can_VM not_XX be_VBI mapped_VVN onto_II the_AT model_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 continuous_JJ history_NN1 ,_, for_IF its_APPGE stress_NN1 on_II putative_JJ anticipations_NN2 fails_VVZ to_TO account_VVI for_IF the_AT way_NN1 in_II which_DDQ the_AT whole_JJ form_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 can_VM be_VBI transformed_VVN and_CC a_AT1 new_JJ understanding_NN1 created_VVD ._. 
Bachelard_NP1 's_GE work_NN1 on_II the_AT formation_NN1 of_IO scientific_JJ disciplines_NN2 led_VVD him_PPHO1 to_TO argue_VVI that_CST the_AT proper_JJ form_NN1 of_IO historical_JJ analysis_NN1 should_VM focus_VVI not_XX upon_II an_AT1 empirical_JJ history_NN1 but_CCB upon_II the_AT cognitive_JJ or_CC epistemological_JJ status_NN1 of_IO concepts_NN2 that_CST distinguish_VV0 a_AT1 new_JJ science_NN1 from_II an_AT1 old_JJ one_PN1 ._. 
Those_DD2 concepts_NN2 have_VH0 not_XX evolved_VVN from_II the_AT old_JJ ones_NN2 ,_, for_IF it_PPH1 is_VBZ precisely_RR their_APPGE radical_JJ difference_NN1 that_CST constitutes_VVZ the_AT new_JJ science_NN1 ,_, the_AT new_JJ '_GE positivity_NN1 '_GE ,_, produced_VVN by_II what_DDQ he_PPHS1 termed_VVD an_AT1 '_GE epistemological_JJ rupture_NN1 '_GE ._. 
Bachelard_NN1 himself_PPX1 preferred_VVN to_TO give_VVI examples_NN2 of_IO such_DA ruptures_NN2 rather_CS21 than_CS22 theorize_VVI how_RRQ they_PPHS2 took_VVD place_NN1 ._. 
Althusserians_NN2 subsequently_RR placed_VVN much_DA1 emphasis_NN1 upon_II the_AT '_GE epistemological_JJ break_NN1 '_GE ,_, and_CC were_VBDR in_II turn_NN1 castigated_VVD for_IF being_VBG unable_JK to_TO explain_VVI how_RRQ it_PPH1 occurred_VVD ._. 
But_CCB this_DD1 neglects_VVZ the_AT force_NN1 of_IO Althusser_NP1 's_GE emphasis_NN1 on_II Marxism_NN1 as_CSA itself_PPX1 a_AT1 theoretical_JJ practice_NN1 with_IW its_APPGE own_DA history_NN1 of_IO epistemological_JJ self-correction_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 possibility_NN1 derived_VVN from_II the_AT work_NN1 of_IO the_AT mathematician_NN1 Jean_NP1 Cavaills_NP2 ,_, who_PNQS stressed_VVD the_AT degree_NN1 to_II which_DDQ the_AT history_NN1 of_IO mathematics_NN1 ,_, particularly_RR set_VV0 theory_NN1 ,_, could_VM be_VBI accounted_VVN for_IF by_II the_AT dialectical_JJ development_NN1 of_IO the_AT concept_NN1 ._. 
Much_DA1 of_IO the_AT emphasis_NN1 on_II set_NN1 theory_NN1 in_II Lacan_NN1 and_CC others_NN2 ,_, as_II31 well_II32 as_II33 the_AT similarity_NN1 of_IO certain_JJ of_IO their_APPGE ideas_NN2 to_II those_DD2 of_IO Gdel_NP1 ,_, whose_DDQGE work_NN1 Cavaills_NP2 utilizes_VVZ ,_, can_VM be_VBI attributed_VVN to_II his_APPGE influence_NN1 :_: indeed_RR it_PPH1 would_VM be_VBI possible_JJ to_TO argue_VVI that_CST the_AT whole_JJ emphasis_NN1 in_II post-war_JJ French_JJ thinkers_NN2 on_II a_AT1 non-contradictory_JJ heterogeneity_NN1 in_II which_DDQ incompatible_JJ or_CC incommensurable_JJ elements_NN2 are_VBR juxtaposed_VVN against_II or_CC as_II part_NN1 of_IO each_PPX221 other_PPX222 is_VBZ derived_VVN as_RG much_DA1 from_II set_NN1 theory_NN1 as_CSA from_II Freud_NP1 ._. 
Cavaills_NN2 developed_VVD these_DD2 ideas_NN2 into_II a_AT1 theory_NN1 of_IO science_NN1 as_II such_DA ,_, which_DDQ ,_, he_PPHS1 argued_VVD ,_, changed_VVD not_XX through_II empirical_JJ discovery_NN1 but_CCB through_II the_AT theoretical_JJ reworking_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE own_DA concepts_NN2 in_II the_AT '_GE pure_JJ '_GE sciences_NN2 ._. 
This_DD1 view_NN1 ,_, whereby_RRQ science_NN1 progresses_VVZ through_II the_AT dialectic_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE concepts_NN2 rather_II21 than_II22 by_II testing_VVG its_APPGE hypotheses_NN2 against_II '_GE experience_NN1 '_GE ,_, was_VBDZ developed_VVN significantly_RR by_II both_RR Bachelard_NP1 and_CC Althusser_NP1 ._. 
If_CS it_PPH1 enabled_VVD the_AT latter_DA the_AT crucial_JJ theoretical_JJ move_NN1 of_IO being_VBG able_JK to_TO reject_VVI the_AT classical_JJ empiricist_NN1 conception_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 was_VBDZ also_RR to_TO put_VVI him_PPHO1 in_II the_AT position_NN1 of_IO even_RR castigating_VVG as_58 '_GE historicist_NN1 '_GE any_RR attempts_VVZ to_TO account_VVI for_IF theoretical_JJ discourse_NN1 in_II31 terms_II32 of_II33 its_APPGE historical_JJ conditions_NN2 of_IO production_NN1 perhaps_RR one_MC1 of_IO the_AT major_JJ ways_NN2 in_II which_DDQ he_PPHS1 differed_VVD from_II Canguilhem_NP1 and_CC Foucault_NP1 ._. 
Bachelard_NN1 and_CC Cavaills_NP2 agree_VV0 that_CST the_AT distinguishing_JJ characteristic_NN1 of_IO modern_JJ science_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT degree_NN1 to_II which_DDQ it_PPH1 has_VHZ become_VVN separated_VVN from_II common-sense_NN1 knowledge_NN1 so_CS21 that_CS22 consciousness_NN1 and_CC its_APPGE concepts_NN2 are_VBR now_RT opposed_VVN :_: The_AT break_NN1 between_II ordinary_JJ and_CC scientific_JJ knowledge_NN1 seems_VVZ to_II us_PPIO2 so_RG clear_JJ that_CST these_DD2 two_MC types_NN2 of_IO knowledge_NN1 could_VM not_XX have_VHI the_AT same_DA philosophy_NN1 ._. 
Empiricism_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT philosophy_NN1 which_DDQ corresponds_VVZ to_II ordinary_JJ knowledge_NN1 ._. 
There_RL empiricism_NN1 finds_VVZ its_APPGE origin_NN1 ,_, its_APPGE evidence_NN1 ,_, its_APPGE development_NN1 ._. 
By_II contrast_NN1 ,_, scientific_JJ knowledge_NN1 is_VBZ bound_VVN up_RP with_IW rationalism_NN1 and_CC ,_, whether_CSW one_PN1 wishes_VVZ it_PPH1 or_CC not_XX ,_, rationalism_NN1 is_VBZ allied_VVN to_II science_NN1 ,_, and_CC demands_NN2 scientific_JJ goals_NN2 ._. 
The_AT use_NN1 of_IO scientific_JJ instruments_NN2 in_RR21 particular_RR22 means_VVZ that_CST scientific_JJ perception_NN1 is_VBZ constantly_RR at_II odds_NN2 with_IW the_AT experience_NN1 of_IO everyday_JJ perception_NN1 ._. 
Because_CS scientificity_NN1 is_VBZ achieved_VVN through_II a_AT1 break_NN1 with_IW common-sense_NN1 forms_NN2 of_IO thinking_NN1 ,_, termed_VVD '_GE epistemological_JJ obstacles_NN2 '_GE ,_, Bachelard_NP1 ,_, like_II Lvi-Strauss_NP1 and_CC Althusser_NN1 after_II him_PPHO1 ,_, argues_VVZ that_CST any_DD philosophy_NN1 such_II21 as_II22 existentialism_NN1 that_CST is_VBZ founded_VVN on_II the_AT basis_NN1 of_IO the_AT truth_NN1 of_IO the_AT experience_NN1 of_IO the_AT knowing_JJ subject_NN1 is_VBZ bound_VVNK to_TO involve_VVI illusory_JJ or_CC ideological_JJ forms_NN2 of_IO thought_NN1 ._. 
For_IF this_DD1 reason_NN1 ,_, Bachelard_NP1 refers_VVZ ironically_RR to_II Sartre_NP1 's_GE phenomenology_NN1 as_II a_AT1 belated_JJ form_NN1 of_IO alchemy_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB if_CS the_AT new_JJ science_NN1 is_VBZ produced_VVN through_II a_AT1 rupture_NN1 with_IW the_AT '_GE errors_NN2 '_GE of_IO the_AT old_JJ ,_, the_AT tenacious_JJ hold_NN1 of_IO common-sense_NN1 forms_NN2 of_IO thought_NN1 means_VVZ that_CST any_DD given_JJ text_NN1 may_VM simultaneously_RR embody_VVI aspects_NN2 of_IO the_AT old_JJ and_CC new_JJ ways_NN2 of_IO thinking_NN1 ,_, theoretical_JJ and_CC ideological_JJ frameworks_NN2 that_CST Bachelard_NP1 ,_, and_CC Althusser_NN1 after_II him_PPHO1 ,_, term_NN1 '_GE problematics_58 '_GE :_: Instead_II21 of_II22 the_AT parade_NN1 of_IO universal_JJ doubt_NN1 ,_, scientific_JJ research_NN1 requires_VVZ the_AT establishment_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 problematic_JJ ._. 
It_PPH1 takes_VVZ its_APPGE real_JJ departure_NN1 from_II a_AT1 problem_NN1 ,_, even_CS21 if_CS22 it_PPH1 is_VBZ badly_RR set_VVN up_RP ._. 
The_AT scientific_JJ I_ZZ1 is_VBZ then_RT a_AT1 programme_NN1 of_IO experiments_NN2 ,_, whereas_CS the_AT non-scientific_JJ I_ZZ1 is_VBZ already_RR a_AT1 constituted_JJ problematic_JJ ._. 
Bachelard_NN1 tries_VVZ to_TO think_VVI through_RP the_AT problem_NN1 of_IO how_RGQ epistemological_JJ obstacles_NN2 operated_VVN both_RR before_CS and_CC after_II scientificity_NN1 ._. 
In_RR21 particular_RR22 ,_, he_PPHS1 suggests_VVZ that_CST the_AT educational_JJ system_NN1 has_VHZ a_AT1 marked_JJ effect_NN1 on_II the_AT production_NN1 and_CC reproduction_NN1 of_IO scientific_JJ knowledge_NN1 ,_, and_CC criticizes_VVZ it_PPH1 for_IF the_AT ahistorical_JJ way_NN1 in_II which_DDQ it_PPH1 teaches_VVZ scientific_JJ problems_NN2 ,_, theories_NN2 ,_, experiments_NN2 and_CC proofs_NN2 ._. 
While_CS pedagogy_NN1 continues_VVZ the_AT myth_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 elementary_JJ or_CC easy_JJ science_NN1 ,_, language_NN1 itself_PPX1 can_VM also_RR produce_VVI difficulties_NN2 ._. 
The_AT nomenclature_NN1 of_IO science_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX refer_VVI to_II definitive_JJ concepts_NN2 :_: It_PPH1 is_VBZ ceaselessly_RR adjusted_VVN ,_, completed_VVD ,_, varied_VVD ._. 
The_AT language_NN1 of_IO science_NN1 is_VBZ in_II a_AT1 state_NN1 of_IO permanent_JJ semantic_JJ revolution_NN1 ._. 
Obstacles_NN2 such_II21 as_II22 these_DD2 lead_VV0 Bachelard_NP1 to_TO formulate_VVI a_AT1 theory_NN1 of_IO '_GE material_NN1 psychoanalysis_NN1 '_GE which_DDQ offers_VVZ a_AT1 '_GE psychoanalysis_NN1 of_IO objective_JJ knowledge_NN1 '_GE to_TO account_VVI for_IF and_CC think_VVI through_RP the_AT problem_NN1 of_IO epistemological_JJ obstacles_NN2 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ also_RR supposed_JJ to_TO have_VHI a_AT1 therapeutic_JJ effect_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 '_GE brutal_JJ ,_, surgical_JJ '_GE separation_NN1 of_IO unconscious_JJ and_CC rational_JJ convictions_NN2 in_II order_NN1 '_GE to_TO cure_VVI us_PPIO2 of_IO our_APPGE images_NN2 or_CC at_RR21 least_RR22 to_TO limit_VVI their_APPGE power_NN1 '_GE ._. 
This_DD1 separation_NN1 between_II scientific_JJ and_CC common-sense_NN1 knowledge_NN1 in_II turn_NN1 produces_VVZ a_AT1 significant_JJ effect_NN1 on_II Bachelard_NP1 's_GE thinking_NN1 about_II history_NN1 ._. 
For_IF ,_, as_CSA Lecourt_NP1 describes_VVZ it_PPH1 ,_, he_PPHS1 attempts_VVZ to_TO elaborate_VVI a_AT1 system_NN1 of_IO concepts_NN2 which_DDQ will_VM make_VVI it_PPH1 possible_JJ to_TO think_VVI the_AT intrication_NN1 of_IO two_MC histories_NN2 :_: that_DD1 of_IO the_AT scientific_JJ and_CC the_AT non-scientific_JJ in_II the_AT practice_NN1 of_IO the_AT scientists_NN2 ._. 
Hence_RR this_DD1 project_NN1 culminates_VVZ in_II Le_NP1 rationalisme_NN1 appliqu_NN1 with_IW the_AT project_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 epistemological_JJ history_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ presented_VVN as_II a_AT1 dual_JJ history_NN1 ;_; a_AT1 '_GE ratified_JJ history_NN1 '_GE (_( or_CC history_NN1 of_IO the_AT scientific_JJ in_II scientific_JJ practice_NN1 )_) and_CC a_AT1 '_GE lapsed_JJ history_NN1 '_GE (_( or_CC history_NN1 of_IO the_AT interventions_NN2 of_IO the_AT non-scientific_JJ in_II scientific_JJ practice_NN1 )_) ._. 
This_DD1 means_VVZ that_DD1 science_NN1 can_VM have_VHI two_MC histories_NN2 ,_, which_DDQ constantly_RR intertwine_VV0 but_CCB never_RR resolve_VV0 ,_, with_IW one_PN1 evaluated_VVD as_RG positive_JJ ,_, the_AT other_JJ as_CSA negative_JJ and_CC therefore_RR silently_RR suppressed_VVN even_CS21 though_CS22 it_PPH1 may_VM remain_VVI determining_JJ ._. 
Instead_II21 of_II22 upholding_VVG one_PN1 at_II the_AT expense_NN1 of_IO the_AT other_JJ ,_, Bachelard_NP1 offers_VVZ the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 deconstructive_JJ history_NN1 which_DDQ would_VM reinscribe_VVI that_DD1 which_DDQ had_VHD been_VBN excluded_VVN ;_; this_DD1 could_VM also_RR enable_VVI a_AT1 differential_JJ history_NN1 of_IO science_NN1 and_CC ideology_NN1 ,_, accounting_VVG for_IF the_AT perpetuation_NN1 of_IO ideology_NN1 after_II the_AT production_NN1 of_IO science_NN1 ._. 
To_TO do_VDI so_RR ,_, Bachelard_NP1 ,_, as_CSA Althusser_NP1 was_VBDZ to_TO do_VDI later_RRR ,_, invokes_VVZ the_AT use_NN1 of_IO psychoanalysis_NN1 for_IF the_AT study_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 and_CC ideology_NN1 ._. 
The_AT notion_NN1 of_IO the_AT epistemological_JJ break_NN1 ,_, while_CS offering_VVG a_AT1 theory_NN1 of_IO scientificity_NN1 ,_, and_CC even_RR of_IO ideology_NN1 ,_, implied_VVD a_AT1 very_RG different_JJ view_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 from_II that_DD1 of_IO Sartre_NP1 ._. 
In_II some_DD sense_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 went_VVD to_II the_AT other_JJ extreme_JJ ,_, for_IF from_II a_AT1 totalizing_JJ history_NN1 it_PPH1 projected_VVD a_AT1 form_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 in_II which_DDQ there_EX was_VBDZ no_AT attempt_NN1 to_TO link_VVI different_JJ histories_NN2 at_RR21 all_RR22 ._. 
Bachelard_NP1 assumed_VVD the_AT necessary_JJ division_NN1 of_IO the_AT scientific_JJ from_II the_AT non-scientific_JJ ,_, even_CS21 if_CS22 de_RR21 facto_RR22 he_PPHS1 was_VBDZ continually_RR encountering_VVG their_APPGE imbrication_NN1 and_CC finding_VVG himself_PPX1 in_II the_AT position_NN1 of_IO trying_VVG to_TO keep_VVI them_PPHO2 apart_RL ._. 
Lecourt_NN1 has_VHZ pointed_VVN to_II the_AT absence_NN1 of_IO '_GE a_AT1 concept_NN1 that_CST would_VM enable_VVI him_PPHO1 to_TO think_VVI together_RL several_DA2 histories_NN2 with_IW different_JJ statuses_NN2 ;_; in_RR21 short_RR22 ,_, the_AT concept_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 differential_JJ history_NN1 '_GE ._. 
Such_DA a_AT1 general_JJ concept_NN1 was_VBDZ to_TO be_VBI provided_VVN by_II Althusser_NP1 's_GE theory_NN1 of_IO relative_JJ autonomy_NN1 within_II a_AT1 structure_NN1 in_II dominance_NN1 ._. 
III_MC ALTHUSSER_NN1 AND_CC THE_AT SCIENCE_NN1 OF_IO HISTORY_NN1 Althusser_NP1 's_GE rereading_NN1 of_IO Marx_NP1 can_VM thus_RR be_VBI as_RG usefully_RR considered_VVN in_II the_AT context_NN1 of_IO theories_NN2 of_IO the_AT history_NN1 of_IO science_NN1 as_II21 of_II22 structuralism_NN1 ;_; a_AT1 certain_JJ conflation_NN1 between_II the_AT two_MC has_VHZ been_VBN possible_JJ because_CS both_DB2 were_VBDR opposed_VVN to_II humanistic_JJ and_CC phenomenological_JJ theories_NN2 of_IO knowledge_NN1 in_RR21 general_RR22 and_CC to_II historicism_NN1 in_RR21 particular_RR22 ._. 
Within_II the_AT general_JJ framework_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE attack_NN1 on_II the_AT humanistic_JJ Hegelian_JJ tradition_NN1 of_IO Western_JJ Marxism_NN1 ,_, Althusser_NP1 's_GE specific_JJ objection_NN1 to_II Sartre_NP1 's_GE attempt_NN1 to_TO mediate_VVI Marxism_NN1 with_IW existential_JJ subjectivity_NN1 was_VBDZ that_DD1 such_DA a_AT1 move_NN1 went_VVD against_II the_AT crucial_JJ discoveries_NN2 which_DDQ had_VHD founded_VVN Marxism_NN1 in_II the_AT first_MD place_NN1 ;_; in_II an_AT1 extension_NN1 of_IO Lvi-Strauss_NP1 '_GE argument_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 maintained_VVD that_CST the_AT notion_NN1 of_IO '_GE man_NN1 '_GE that_DD1 Sartre_NP1 used_VVD was_VBDZ derived_VVN from_II a_AT1 particular_JJ ideological_JJ definition_NN1 of_IO the_AT human_JJ subject_NN1 which_DDQ represses_VVZ Marx_NP1 's_GE insight_NN1 that_CST the_AT human_JJ subject_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX the_AT centre_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ,_, together_RL with_IW Freud_NP1 's_VBZ that_CST the_AT subject_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX centred_VVN in_II consciousness_NN1 ._. 
For_IF Althusser_NP1 both_DB2 history_NN1 and_CC the_AT subject_NN1 are_VBR equally_RR decentred_VVN :_: his_APPGE attack_NN1 on_II Sartre_NP1 's_GE claims_NN2 for_IF a_AT1 unitary_JJ history_NN1 (_( however_RGQV complex_JJ its_APPGE textual_JJ elaboration_NN1 may_VM have_VHI proved_VVN to_TO be_VBI )_) was_VBDZ therefore_RR accompanied_VVN by_II a_AT1 critique_NN1 of_IO the_AT notion_NN1 of_IO the_AT unitary_JJ human_JJ subject_NN1 that_CST constitutes_VVZ it_PPH1 ._. 
One_MC1 way_NN1 of_IO characterizing_VVG Althusser_NP1 's_GE intervention_NN1 would_VM be_VBI Martin_NP1 Jay_NP1 's_GE observation_NN1 that_CST he_PPHS1 effectively_RR destroyed_VVD the_AT Lukcsian_JJ notion_NN1 of_IO totality_NN1 ._. 
Another_DD1 would_VM be_VBI to_TO say_VVI he_PPHS1 attempted_VVD to_TO theorize_VVI the_AT very_JJ position_NN1 that_CST Sartre_NP1 had_VHD fought_VVN to_TO get_VVI out_II21 of_II22 ._. 
If_CS Sartre_NP1 's_GE argument_NN1 depended_VVN on_II a_AT1 logic_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 as_CSA totalization_NN1 but_CCB broke_VVD down_RP when_CS he_PPHS1 could_VM not_XX combine_VVI the_AT praxis_NN1 of_IO the_AT individual_NN1 with_IW the_AT general_JJ logic_NN1 of_IO '_GE totalization_NN1 without_IW a_AT1 totalizer_NN1 '_GE except_CS through_II the_AT proliferation_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE own_DA writing_NN1 ,_, Althusser_NP1 ,_, by_II contrast_NN1 ,_, exploited_VVD the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 as_II a_AT1 '_GE process_NN1 without_IW a_AT1 subject_NN1 '_GE ,_, a_AT1 history_NN1 characterized_VVN by_II radical_JJ breaks_NN2 and_CC discontinuities_NN2 ,_, distinct_JJ from_II each_PPX221 other_PPX222 and_CC not_XX totalizing_VVG ._. 
It_PPH1 was_VBDZ this_DD1 aspect_NN1 of_IO Althusserian_JJ theory_NN1 ,_, perhaps_RR more_DAR than_CSN any_DD other_JJ ,_, that_CST led_VVD many_DA2 orthodox_JJ Marxists_NN2 to_TO consider_VVI that_DD1 Althusser_NN1 was_VBDZ not_XX really_RR a_AT1 Marxist_JJ at_RR21 all_RR22 ._. 
The_AT accusation_NN1 that_CST poststructuralism_NN1 neglects_VVZ history_NN1 undoubtedly_RR harks_VVZ back_RP above_II all_DB to_II the_AT work_NN1 of_IO Althusser_NP1 who_PNQS ,_, more_RRR than_CSN anyone_PN1 else_RR ,_, appears_VVZ to_TO have_VHI attempted_VVN to_TO eliminate_VVI history_NN1 ._. 
Notwithstanding_II their_APPGE philosophical_JJ and_CC political_JJ differences_NN2 ,_, there_EX are_VBR nevertheless_RR certain_JJ similarities_NN2 between_II Althusser_NP1 's_GE and_CC Sartre_NP1 's_GE projects_NN2 when_CS viewed_VVN in_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 orthodox_JJ Marxism_NN1 ._. 
Althusser_NP1 shared_VVD Sartre_NP1 's_GE opposition_NN1 to_II Stalinism_NN1 's_GE emphasis_NN1 on_II economism_NN1 and_CC technical_JJ determinism_NN1 ,_, dissociating_VVG himself_PPX1 from_II it_PPH1 not_XX through_II an_AT1 assertion_NN1 of_IO individual_JJ agency_NN1 but_CCB through_II a_AT1 reformulation_NN1 of_IO the_AT Marxist_JJ thesis_NN1 of_IO determination_NN1 by_II economic_JJ relations_NN2 redefined_VVD as_II a_AT1 causal_JJ rather_II21 than_II22 a_AT1 historical_JJ relation_NN1 ._. 
At_II the_AT same_DA time_NNT1 Althusser_NP1 argued_VVD that_CST Sartre_NP1 had_VHD not_XX isolated_VVN the_AT central_JJ problems_NN2 of_IO orthodox_JJ Marxist_JJ theory_NN1 ,_, and_CC as_II a_AT1 result_NN1 continued_VVD to_TO work_VVI with_IW some_DD of_IO its_APPGE more_RGR questionable_JJ preconceptions_NN2 ._. 
In_RR21 particular_RR22 ,_, in_II31 spite_II32 of_II33 his_APPGE attempt_NN1 to_TO avoid_VVI positing_VVG history_NN1 as_II an_AT1 a_JJ21 priori_JJ22 transcendent_JJ law_NN1 ,_, in_II the_AT published_JJ first_MD volume_NN1 of_IO the_AT Critique_NN1 he_PPHS1 had_VHD still_RR utilized_VVN an_AT1 organicist_NN1 teleological_JJ model_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 which_DDQ assumes_VVZ that_CST the_AT end_NN1 is_VBZ already_RR implicit_JJ in_II the_AT beginning_NN1 ,_, and_CC that_DD1 history_NN1 rolls_NN2 forward_RL to_II a_AT1 determined_JJ end_NN1 ._. 
Both_RR Stalinism_NN1 and_CC Sartreanism_NN1 assume_VV0 that_DD1 history_NN1 is_VBZ an_AT1 emancipatory_JJ process_NN1 of_IO self-realization_NN1 ,_, even_CS21 if_CS22 the_AT forces_NN2 of_IO production_NN1 in_II the_AT one_MC1 are_VBR replaced_VVN by_II the_AT praxis_NN1 of_IO the_AT self-conscious_JJ human_JJ subject_NN1 in_II the_AT other_JJ ._. 
Althusser_NP1 termed_VVD such_DA a_AT1 view_NN1 '_GE historicism_NN1 '_GE :_: an_AT1 abstract_JJ philosophical_JJ scheme_NN1 that_CST imposes_VVZ an_AT1 overall_JJ process_NN1 of_IO transformation_NN1 upon_II historical_JJ events_NN2 ._. 
At_II first_MD glance_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 might_VM seem_VVI as_CS21 if_CS22 Althusser_NP1 himself_PPX1 gave_VVD up_RP history_NN1 and_CC tried_JJ science_NN1 instead_RR ._. 
Like_II Sartre_NP1 ,_, he_PPHS1 sought_VVD to_TO constitute_VVI Marxism_NN1 as_II a_AT1 form_NN1 of_IO truth_NN1 ,_, but_CCB attempted_VVD to_TO prove_VVI its_APPGE truth_NN1 not_XX through_II the_AT dialectic_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 but_CCB rather_RR as_II a_AT1 science_NN1 ,_, authenticating_VVG Marx_NP1 's_GE '_GE immense_JJ theoretical_JJ revolution_NN1 '_GE epistemologically_RR through_II a_AT1 demonstration_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE scientificity_NN1 ._. 
In_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO claim_VVI a_AT1 scientific_JJ status_NN1 for_IF Marxism_NN1 as_CSA knowledge_NN1 rather_II21 than_II22 ideology_NN1 ,_, or_CC non-knowledge_NN1 ,_, Althusser_NP1 invoked_VVD Bachelard_NP1 's_GE historical_JJ epistemology_NN1 which_DDQ allowed_VVD him_PPHO1 to_TO posit_VVI the_AT idea_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 radical_JJ discontinuity_NN1 between_II the_AT two_MC ,_, with_IW Marxist_JJ science_NN1 separated_VVN from_II earlier_JJR forms_NN2 of_IO non-knowledge_NN1 in_II Marx_NP1 's_GE texts_NN2 by_II an_AT1 '_GE epistemological_JJ break_NN1 '_GE ._. 
This_DD1 necessarily_RR meant_VVD that_CST Althusser_NP1 endorsed_VVD Bachelard_NP1 's_GE arguments_NN2 about_II empiricism_NN1 and_CC rejected_VVD the_AT concept_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 as_II a_AT1 system_NN1 of_IO progression_NN1 or_CC evolution_NN1 ._. 
However_RRQV Althusser_NP1 found_VVD it_PPH1 difficult_JJ to_TO maintain_VVI a_AT1 Marxist_JJ theory_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 while_CS avoiding_VVG its_APPGE customary_JJ Hegelian_JJ form_NN1 ._. 
His_APPGE basic_JJ argument_NN1 ,_, that_CST Marx_NP1 proposed_VVD a_AT1 new_JJ conception_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 defined_VVN against_II Hegelianism_NN1 ,_, implied_VVD an_AT1 accompanying_JJ revision_NN1 of_IO the_AT Hegelian_JJ concept_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ ,_, as_CSA we_PPIS2 have_VH0 seen_VVN in_II the_AT cases_NN2 of_IO Lukcs_NP2 and_CC Sartre_NP1 ,_, had_VHD hitherto_RT provided_VVN the_AT dominant_JJ model_NN1 of_IO Marxist_JJ historicism_NN1 ._. 
Althusser_NP1 's_GE theory_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN more_RGR widely_RR attacked_VVN and_CC denigrated_JJ than_CSN any_DD other_JJ aspect_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE work_NN1 ,_, largely_RR because_CS he_PPHS1 dared_VVD to_TO argue_VVI that_DD1 ,_, far_RR from_II providing_VVG the_AT unassailable_JJ foundation_NN1 of_IO Marxism_NN1 ,_, history_NN1 was_VBDZ a_AT1 problematic_JJ concept_NN1 even_RR in_II Marx_NP1 's_GE own_DA texts_NN2 :_: this_DD1 apparently_RR full_JJ word_NN1 is_VBZ in_II fact_NN1 theoretically_RR an_AT1 empty_JJ word_NN1 ,_, in_II the_AT immediacy_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE obviousness_NN1 or_CC rather_RR ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ the_AT ideology-fulfilment_NN1 which_DDQ surfaces_NN2 in_II this_DD1 lapse_NN1 of_IO rigour_NN1 ._. 
Anyone_PN1 who_PNQS reads_VVZ Capital_NN1 without_IW posing_VVG the_AT critical_JJ question_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE object_NN1 sees_VVZ no_AT malice_NN1 in_II this_DD1 word_NN1 that_CST '_" speaks_58 '_GE to_II him_PPHO1 :_: he_PPHS1 happily_RR continues_VVZ the_AT discourse_NN1 whose_DDQGE first_MD word_NN1 this_DD1 word_NN1 may_VM be_VBI ,_, the_AT ideological_JJ discourse_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ,_, and_CC then_RT the_AT historicist_NN1 discourse_NN1 ._. 
As_CSA we_PPIS2 have_VH0 seen_VVN and_CC as_CSA we_PPIS2 understand_VV0 ,_, the_AT theoretical_JJ and_CC practical_JJ consequences_NN2 are_VBR not_XX so_RG innocent._NNU (_( 143_MC )_) Althusser_NP1 argues_VVZ that_CST Marx_NP1 's_GE intervention_NN1 did_VDD not_XX merely_RR amount_NN1 to_II the_AT historicization_NN1 of_IO the_AT formal_JJ categories_NN2 of_IO the_AT classical_JJ economists_NN2 ._. 
If_CS this_DD1 was_VBDZ the_AT case_NN1 all_RR he_PPHS1 would_VM have_VHI done_VDN would_VM have_VHI been_VBN to_II Hegelianize_NP1 Ricardo_NP1 ._. 
Marxists_NN2 often_RR imply_VV0 that_DD1 Marxism_NN1 simply_RR involves_VVZ the_AT introduction_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 historical_JJ framework_NN1 '_GE always_RR historicize_VV0 !_! '_GE but_CCB this_DD1 assumption_NN1 can_VM only_RR be_VBI made_VVN ,_, according_II21 to_II22 Althusser_NP1 ,_, because_II21 of_II22 '_GE the_AT confusion_NN1 that_CST surrounds_VVZ the_AT concept_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 '_GE :_: In_II reality_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ to_TO introduce_VVI as_II a_AT1 solution_NN1 a_AT1 concept_NN1 which_DDQ itself_PPX1 poses_VVZ a_AT1 theoretical_JJ problem_NN1 ,_, for_CS as_CSA it_PPH1 is_VBZ adopted_VVN and_CC understood_VVN it_PPH1 is_VBZ an_AT1 uncriticized_JJ concept_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 concept_NN1 which_DDQ ,_, like_II all_DB '_" obvious_58 '_GE concepts_NN2 ,_, threatens_VVZ to_TO have_VHI for_IF theoretical_JJ content_NN1 no_AT more_DAR than_CSN the_AT function_NN1 that_CST the_AT existing_JJ or_CC dominant_JJ ideology_NN1 defines_VVZ for_IF it_PPH1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ to_TO introduce_VVI as_II a_AT1 theoretical_JJ solution_NN1 a_AT1 concept_NN1 whose_DDQGE status_NN1 has_VHZ not_XX been_VBN examined_VVN ,_, and_CC which_DDQ ,_, far_RR from_II being_VBG a_AT1 solution_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ in_II reality_NN1 a_AT1 theoretical_JJ problem._NNU (_( 93_MC )_) Historicism_NN1 presumes_VVZ that_CST a_AT1 concept_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 can_VM be_VBI borrowed_VVN for_IF Marxism_NN1 from_II Hegel_NP1 or_CC from_II the_AT practice_NN1 of_IO empiricist_NN1 historians_NN2 without_IW difficulty_NN1 and_CC without_IW asking_VVG how_RRQ such_DA a_AT1 concept_NN1 is_VBZ specific_JJ to_II Marxism_NN1 :_: for_IF Althusser_NP1 the_AT crucial_JJ question_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO ask_VVI '_" what_DDQ must_VM be_VBI the_AT content_NN1 of_IO the_AT concept_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 imposed_VVN by_II Marx_NP1 's_GE theoretical_JJ problematic_JJ ?_? 
'_" That_DD1 problematic_JJ can_VM not_XX be_VBI identical_JJ to_II Hegel_NP1 's_GE because_CS both_RR Hegel_NP1 and_CC Marx_NP1 define_VV0 historical_JJ time_NNT1 in_II31 terms_II32 of_II33 the_AT social_JJ totality_NN1 :_: insofar_CS21 as_CS22 their_APPGE definitions_NN2 of_IO the_AT social_JJ totality_NN1 can_VM be_VBI shown_VVN to_TO differ_VVI ,_, so_RG also_RR will_VM their_APPGE concepts_NN2 of_IO historical_JJ time_NNT1 ._. 
For_IF Flegel_NP1 '_GE historical_JJ time_NNT1 is_VBZ merely_RR the_AT reflection_NN1 in_II the_AT continuity_NN1 of_IO time_NNT1 of_IO the_AT internal_JJ essence_NN1 of_IO the_AT historical_JJ totality_NN1 incarnating_VVG a_AT1 moment_NN1 of_IO the_AT development_NN1 of_IO the_AT concept_NN1 '_GE (_( 93_MC )_) ._. 
Historical_JJ time_NNT1 is_VBZ the_AT existence_NN1 of_IO the_AT essence_NN1 of_IO the_AT social_JJ totality_NN1 and_CC will_VM therefore_RR indicate_VVI its_APPGE structure_NN1 ._. 
Althusser_NN1 isolates_VVZ two_MC key_JJ characteristics_NN2 of_IO Hegelian_JJ historical_JJ time_NNT1 ,_, '_" its_APPGE homogeneous_JJ continuity_NN1 and_CC its_APPGE contemporaneity_NN1 '_GE ._. 
The_AT first_MD is_VBZ well_RR known_VVN :_: here_RL time_NNT1 is_VBZ the_AT '_GE continuum_NN1 in_II which_DDQ the_AT dialectical_JJ continuity_NN1 of_IO the_AT process_NN1 of_IO the_AT development_NN1 of_IO the_AT Idea_NN1 is_VBZ manifest_JJ '_GE (_( 94_MC )_) ._. 
In_II this_DD1 schema_NN1 the_AT science_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 consists_VVZ of_IO the_AT problem_NN1 of_IO the_AT division_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 continuum_NN1 into_II the_AT periods_NN2 that_CST constitute_VV0 successive_JJ dialectical_JJ totalities_NN2 ._. 
The_AT second_MD characteristic_NN1 ,_, the_AT contemporaneity_NN1 of_IO historical_JJ time_NNT1 ,_, that_REX21 is_REX22 ,_, the_AT category_NN1 of_IO the_AT historical_JJ present_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ more_RGR complex_JJ but_CCB an_AT1 essential_JJ element_NN1 in_II the_AT whole_JJ Hegelian_JJ model_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ,_, indeed_RR is_VBZ its_APPGE condition_NN1 of_IO possibility_NN1 ._. 
If_CS historical_JJ time_NNT1 is_VBZ the_AT existence_NN1 of_IO the_AT social_JJ totality_NN1 then_RT the_AT relation_NN1 between_II the_AT two_MC must_VM be_VBI one_MC1 of_IO immediacy_NN1 ,_, allowing_VVG what_DDQ Althusser_NP1 calls_VVZ an_AT1 '_GE essential_JJ section_NN1 '_GE ,_, that_DD1 is_58 '_GE a_AT1 break_NN1 in_II the_AT present_NN1 such_CS21 that_CS22 all_DB the_AT elements_NN2 of_IO the_AT whole_NN1 revealed_VVN by_II this_DD1 section_NN1 are_VBR in_II an_AT1 immediate_JJ relationship_NN1 with_IW one_PPX121 another_PPX122 ,_, a_AT1 relationship_NN1 that_CST immediately_RR expresses_VVZ their_APPGE internal_JJ essence_NN1 '_GE ._. 
This_DD1 section_NN1 is_VBZ possible_JJ precisely_RR because_CS the_AT unity_NN1 of_IO the_AT whole_NN1 is_VBZ an_AT1 expressive_JJ totality_NN1 ,_, that_DD1 is_58 '_GE a_AT1 totality_NN1 all_DB of_IO whose_DDQGE parts_NN2 are_VBR so_RG many_DA2 '_GE total_JJ parts_NN2 '_GE each_DD1 expressing_VVG the_AT others_NN2 ,_, and_CC each_DD1 expressing_VVG the_AT social_JJ totality_NN1 that_CST contains_VVZ them_PPHO2 ,_, because_CS each_DD1 in_II itself_PPX1 contains_VVZ in_II the_AT immediate_JJ form_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE expression_NN1 the_AT essence_NN1 of_IO the_AT totality_NN1 itself_PPX1 '_GE (_( 94_MC )_) ._. 
Hegel_NP1 's_GE conception_NN1 of_IO historical_JJ time_NNT1 ,_, then_RT ,_, reflects_VVZ his_APPGE conception_NN1 of_IO the_AT intrinsic_JJ unity_NN1 between_II all_DB parts_NN2 of_IO the_AT social_JJ totality_NN1 ,_, each_DD1 a_AT1 part_NN1 of_IO the_AT whole_NN1 and_CC the_AT whole_JJ present_NN1 in_II each_DD1 part_NN1 ,_, so_CS21 that_CS22 history_NN1 too_RR partakes_VVZ of_IO a_AT1 self-reflective_JJ immediacy_NN1 which_DDQ paradoxically_RR makes_VVZ it_PPH1 ahistorical_JJ ._. 
Perhaps_RR surprisingly_RR ,_, given_VVN his_APPGE alleged_JJ '_GE structuralism_NN1 '_GE ,_, Althusser_NP1 argues_VVZ that_CST the_AT structuralist_JJ distinction_NN1 between_II synchrony_NN1 and_CC diachrony_NN1 rests_VVZ upon_II this_DD1 Hegelian_JJ version_NN1 of_IO historical_JJ time_NNT1 which_DDQ is_VBZ both_RR continuous_JJ and_CC contemporaneous_JJ with_IW itself_PPX1 ._. 
Against_II this_DD1 Althusser_NN1 maintains_VVZ that_DD1 time_NNT1 ,_, even_RR chronological_JJ time_NNT1 ,_, is_VBZ not_XX just_RR an_AT1 empirical_JJ entity_NN1 ,_, but_CCB a_AT1 concept_NN1 ;_; that_CST though_CS history_NN1 may_VM be_VBI articulated_VVN in_RR21 general_RR22 with_IW chronological_JJ time_NNT1 ,_, each_DD1 history_NN1 has_VHZ its_APPGE own_DA temporality_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ can_VM only_RR be_VBI found_VVN by_II establishing_VVG the_AT conceptual_JJ nexus_NN1 of_IO the_AT history_NN1 in_II question_NN1 ._. 
In_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO determine_VVI what_DDQ an_AT1 event_NN1 is_VBZ ,_, we_PPIS2 must_VM know_VVI the_AT concept_NN1 of_IO the_AT history_NN1 in_II which_DDQ the_AT event_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO occur_VVI ._. 
For_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, in_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO understand_VVI the_AT history_NN1 of_IO physics_NN1 ,_, we_PPIS2 have_VH0 to_TO know_VVI the_AT concept_NN1 or_CC problematic_JJ of_IO physics_NN1 in_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO establish_VVI what_DDQ an_AT1 event_NN1 in_II physics_NN1 consists_VVZ of_IO ._. 
Of_RR21 course_RR22 a_AT1 chronological_JJ narrative_NN1 can_VM be_VBI constructed_VVN ,_, but_CCB the_AT history_NN1 of_IO physics_NN1 in_II fact_NN1 has_VHZ its_APPGE own_DA temporality_NN1 in_II which_DDQ the_AT first_MD event_NN1 after_II Aristotle_NP1 was_VBDZ Newton_NP1 ,_, the_AT second_NNT1 was_VBDZ Einstein_NP1 ,_, the_AT third_MD black_JJ holes_NN2 ,_, etc_RA ._. 
Now_RT this_DD1 specific_JJ temporality_NN1 will_VM have_VHI no_AT homogeneous_JJ relation_NN1 to_II ,_, say_VV0 ,_, the_AT history_NN1 of_IO literature_NN1 ._. 
However_RR ,_, it_PPH1 can_VM be_VBI articulated_VVN with_IW other_JJ histories_NN2 ,_, indeed_RR is_VBZ articulated_VVN ,_, according_II21 to_II22 the_AT overall_NN1 but_CCB decentred_VVD totality_NN1 of_IO the_AT particular_JJ mode_NN1 of_IO production_NN1 ._. 
Sometimes_RT Althusser_NP1 seems_VVZ to_TO imply_VVI that_DD1 different_JJ histories_NN2 may_VM range_VVI through_II different_JJ modes_NN2 of_IO production_NN1 ,_, at_II other_JJ times_NNT2 it_PPH1 appears_VVZ that_CST they_PPHS2 are_VBR specific_JJ to_II each_DD1 ,_, an_AT1 effect_NN1 of_IO the_AT overdetermination_NN1 of_IO the_AT social_JJ formation_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB in_II either_DD1 case_NN1 ,_, unlike_II the_AT Hegelian_JJ essential_JJ section_NN1 ,_, where_CS each_DD1 event_NN1 can_VM be_VBI shown_VVN to_TO be_VBI in_II an_AT1 essential_JJ articulation_NN1 with_IW the_AT whole_NN1 in_II a_AT1 continuous_JJ and_CC homogeneous_JJ spatio-temporality_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 cross-section_NN1 at_II any_DD particular_JJ moment_NN1 will_VM show_VVI a_AT1 heterogeneous_JJ array_NN1 of_IO presences_NN2 and_CC absences_NN2 ._. 
Althusser_NN1 elaborates_VVZ his_APPGE thesis_NN1 that_CST Marxism_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 historicism_NN1 at_II some_DD length_NN1 ,_, presenting_VVG a_AT1 critique_NN1 of_IO the_AT historicist_NN1 and_CC humanist_JJ traditions_NN2 which_DDQ he_PPHS1 takes_VVZ back_RP from_II Sartre_NP1 to_II the_AT beginning_NN1 of_IO the_AT century_NNT1 ,_, even_RR to_II the_AT Russian_JJ Revolution_NN1 itself_PPX1 ,_, and_CC in_II which_DDQ he_PPHS1 also_RR includes_VVZ the_AT '_GE absolute_JJ historicism_NN1 '_GE of_IO Gramsci_NP1 and_CC the_AT Frankfurt_NP1 School_NN1 ._. 
Above_II all_DB ,_, he_PPHS1 criticizes_VVZ the_AT ways_NN2 in_II which_DDQ Hegel_NP1 reduces_VVZ the_AT diverse_JJ historical_JJ totality_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 society_NN1 to_II a_AT1 single_JJ internal_JJ principle_NN1 ,_, so_CS21 that_CS22 history_NN1 occurs_VVZ only_RR through_II the_AT principle_NN1 of_IO contradiction_NN1 in_II the_AT dialectic_NN1 ._. 
For_IF Althusser_NP1 ,_, the_AT apparently_RR simple_JJ contradiction_NN1 is_VBZ always_RR overdetermined_VVN :_: the_AT inversion_NN1 of_IO Hegel_NP1 's_GE single_JJ principle_NN1 to_II a_AT1 dialectic_NN1 generating_VVG successive_JJ modes_NN2 of_IO production_NN1 amounts_VVZ to_II economism_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 objection_NN1 holds_VVZ equally_RR for_IF Sartre_NP1 's_GE Hegelian_JJ historicism_NN1 ,_, the_AT effect_NN1 of_IO which_DDQ is_VBZ to_TO reduce_VVI the_AT multiplicity_NN1 of_IO different_JJ practices_NN2 to_II a_AT1 single_JJ practice_NN1 ,_, '_GE real_JJ '_GE history_NN1 '_GE (_( 136_MC )_) ._. 
Sartre_NP1 's_GE historicism_NN1 shares_VVZ the_AT common_JJ tendency_NN1 of_IO all_DB historicist_NN1 interpretations_NN2 of_IO Marxism_NN1 which_DDQ transform_NN1 '_GE the_AT Marxist_JJ totality_NN1 into_II a_AT1 variant_NN1 of_IO the_AT Hegelian_JJ totality_NN1 '_GE :_: they_PPHS2 all_DB share_VV0 the_AT structure_NN1 of_IO the_AT contemporaneity_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 temporal_JJ presence_NN1 and_CC continuity_NN1 which_DDQ allows_VVZ the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 essential_JJ section._NNU paradoxically_RR therefore_RR ,_, Althusser_NP1 argues_VVZ ,_, humanist_JJ Marxism_NN1 shares_VVZ the_AT same_DA basic_JJ theoretical_JJ principles_NN2 with_IW the_AT orthodox_JJ economist_NN1 Marxism_NN1 of_IO the_AT Second_MD International_JJ which_DDQ politically_RR it_PPH1 was_VBDZ its_APPGE aim_NN1 to_TO oppose_VVI :_: for_IF whether_CSW passive_JJ or_CC active_JJ ,_, fatalist_NN1 or_CC voluntarist_NN1 ,_, both_DB2 reduce_VV0 Marxist_JJ analysis_NN1 to_II a_AT1 single_JJ theoretical_JJ problematic_JJ ._. 
All_DB that_DD1 has_VHZ happened_VVN is_VBZ that_CST the_AT relations_NN2 of_IO production_NN1 have_VH0 been_VBN turned_VVN into_II historicized_JJ human_JJ relations_NN2 ._. 
IV_MC THE_AT LONELY_JJ HOUR_NNT1 Althusser_NP1 's_GE procedure_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN to_TO show_VVI that_DD1 ,_, within_II a_AT1 notion_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 that_CST seemed_VVD as_CS21 if_CS22 it_PPH1 could_VM be_VBI invoked_VVN on_II its_APPGE own_DA as_CSA self-evident_JJ ,_, there_EX rests_VVZ an_AT1 entire_JJ presupposition_NN1 about_II the_AT conception_NN1 of_IO the_AT social_JJ whole_NN1 that_CST is_VBZ not_XX derived_VVN from_II Marxist_JJ theory_NN1 ._. 
The_AT Marxist_JJ concept_NN1 of_IO historical_JJ time_NNT1 must_VM instead_RR ,_, he_PPHS1 argues_VVZ ,_, be_VBI thought_VVN through_RP '_GE on_II the_AT basis_NN1 of_IO the_AT Marxist_JJ conception_NN1 of_IO the_AT social_JJ totality_NN1 '_GE (_( 97_MC )_) ._. 
That_DD1 Marxist_JJ conception_NN1 is_VBZ ,_, of_RR21 course_RR22 ,_, the_AT Althusserian_JJ one_PN1 :_: in_II Althusser_NP1 's_GE reading_NN1 of_IO Marx_NP1 the_AT unity_NN1 of_IO the_AT whole_NN1 is_VBZ precisely_RR not_XX that_DD1 of_IO the_AT Hegelian_JJ and_CC Sartrean_JJ expressive_JJ totality_NN1 ;_; rather_RR it_PPH1 is_VBZ constituted_VVN through_II overdetermination_NN1 ,_, through_II :_: a_AT1 certain_JJ type_NN1 of_IO complexity_NN1 ,_, the_AT unity_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 structured_JJ whole_NN1 containing_VVG what_DDQ can_VM be_VBI called_VVN levels_NN2 or_CC instances_NN2 which_DDQ are_VBR distinct_JJ and_CC '_GE relatively_RR autonomous_58 '_GE ,_, and_CC coexist_VV0 within_II this_DD1 complex_JJ structural_JJ unity_NN1 ,_, articulated_VVN with_IW one_PPX121 another_PPX122 according_II21 to_II22 specific_JJ determinations_NN2 ,_, fixed_VVN in_II the_AT last_MD instance_NN1 by_II the_AT level_NN1 or_CC instance_NN1 of_IO the_AT economy._NNU (_( 97_MC )_) The_AT Hegelian_JJ model_NN1 of_IO the_AT coexistence_NN1 of_IO presence_NN1 which_DDQ allows_VVZ the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO the_AT '_GE essential_JJ section_NN1 '_GE is_VBZ incompatible_JJ with_IW this_DD1 description_NN1 ,_, but_CCB Althusser_NP1 continues_VVZ to_TO assume_VVI nevertheless_RR that_CST there_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 totality_NN1 and_CC that_CST it_PPH1 has_58 '_GE the_AT structure_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 organic_JJ hierarchised_JJ whole_NN1 '_GE (_( 98_MC )_) ._. 
This_DD1 structure_NN1 ,_, made_VVD up_RP of_IO a_AT1 succession_NN1 of_IO different_JJ levels_NN2 or_CC instances_NN2 ,_, is_VBZ dominated_VVN by_II one_MC1 form_NN1 of_IO production_NN1 which_DDQ forces_VVZ the_AT unity_NN1 of_IO any_DD conjuncture_NN1 ,_, the_AT non-economic_JJ structures_NN2 determined_JJ '_GE in_II the_AT last_MD instance_NN1 '_GE by_II the_AT economic_JJ (_( 99_MC )_) ._. 
This_DD1 last_MD description_NN1 is_VBZ often_RR misunderstood_VVN :_: the_AT point_NN1 is_VBZ that_CST the_AT economic_JJ is_VBZ never_RR a_AT1 simple_JJ causal_JJ function_NN1 that_CST operates_VVZ alone_RR :_: the_AT economic_JJ dialectic_NN1 is_VBZ never_RR active_JJ in_II the_AT pure_JJ state_NN1 ;_; in_II History_NN1 ,_, these_DD2 instances_NN2 ,_, the_AT superstructures_NN2 ,_, etc._RA are_VBR never_RR seen_VVN to_TO step_VVI respectfully_RR aside_RL when_CS their_APPGE work_NN1 is_VBZ done_VDN or_CC ,_, when_CS the_AT Time_NNT1 comes_VVZ ,_, as_CSA his_APPGE pure_JJ phenomena_NN2 ,_, to_TO scatter_VVI before_II His_APPGE Majesty_NN1 the_AT Economy_NN1 as_CSA he_PPHS1 strides_VVZ along_II the_AT royal_JJ road_NN1 of_IO the_AT Dialectic_NN1 ._. 
From_II the_AT first_MD moment_NN1 to_II the_AT last_MD ,_, the_AT lonely_JJ hour_NNT1 of_IO the_AT '_GE last_MD instance_NN1 '_GE never_RR comes_VVZ ._. 
The_AT significance_NN1 of_IO the_AT allusion_NN1 to_II Freud_NP1 in_II this_DD1 famous_JJ passage_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO suggest_VVI that_DD1 to_TO conceive_VVI of_IO the_AT economic_JJ as_CSA operating_VVG in_II isolation_NN1 is_VBZ as_RG illusory_JJ as_CSA to_TO imagine_VVI that_CST the_AT ego_NN1 can_VM operate_VVI without_IW the_AT unconscious_JJ :_: they_PPHS2 are_VBR both_RR the_AT reciprocal_JJ products_NN2 of_IO the_AT other_JJ ._. 
The_AT '_GE last_MD instance_NN1 '_GE ,_, the_AT economic_JJ ,_, never_RR operates_VVZ in_II isolation_NN1 separate_VV0 from_II all_DB the_AT other_JJ instances_NN2 of_IO the_AT social_JJ totality_NN1 :_: it_PPH1 is_VBZ the_AT lonely_JJ hour_NNT1 that_CST never_RR comes_VVZ ._. 
If_CS one_PN1 were_VBDR to_TO pursue_VVI the_AT analogy_NN1 with_IW Freud_NP1 rigorously_RR ,_, Althusser_NP1 is_VBZ even_RR suggesting_VVG here_RL that_CST the_AT primacy_NN1 of_IO the_AT economic_JJ (_( ego_NN1 )_) is_VBZ a_AT1 delusion_NN1 ,_, and_CC that_CST the_AT superstructure_NN1 (_( unconscious_JJ )_) is_VBZ the_AT more_RGR fundamental_JJ determining_JJ force_NN1 ,_, or_CC at_II the_AT very_RG least_RRT that_DD1 they_PPHS2 are_VBR equally_RR overdetermined_VVN ._. 
Whereas_CS Sartre_NP1 's_GE totality_NN1 was_VBDZ never_RR totalized_VVN because_CS it_PPH1 was_VBDZ always_RR still_RR in_II process_NN1 and_CC could_VM never_RR be_VBI closed_VVN ,_, Althusser_NP1 's_GE totality_NN1 is_VBZ never_RR totalizable_JJ because_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ decentred_VVN and_CC displaced_VVN in_II time_NNT1 ._. 
The_AT different_JJ structured_JJ levels_NN2 do_VD0 not_XX coexist_VVI in_II a_AT1 temporal_JJ present_NN1 which_DDQ coincides_VVZ with_IW '_GE the_AT presence_NN1 of_IO the_AT essence_NN1 with_IW its_APPGE phenomena_NN2 '_GE ._. 
This_DD1 means_VVZ that_CST the_AT model_NN1 of_IO continuous_JJ and_CC homogeneous_JJ time_NNT1 which_DDQ Lvi-Strauss_NP1 had_VHD also_RR argued_VVN against_II can_VM not_XX here_RL be_VBI regarded_VVN as_II the_AT time_NNT1 of_IO history_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 has_VHZ nothing_PN1 to_TO do_VDI with_IW turning_VVG diachrony_NN1 into_II synchrony_NN1 ;_; the_AT point_NN1 is_VBZ rather_RR that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ no_RR21 longer_RR22 possible_JJ to_TO think_VVI the_AT process_NN1 of_IO the_AT development_NN1 of_IO the_AT different_JJ levels_NN2 of_IO the_AT whole_NN1 in_II the_AT same_DA historical_JJ time_NNT1 ._. 
Each_DD1 of_IO these_DD2 different_JJ '_GE levels_NN2 '_GE does_VDZ not_XX have_VHI the_AT same_DA type_NN1 of_IO historical_JJ existence_NN1 ._. 
On_II the_AT contrary_NN1 ,_, we_PPIS2 have_VH0 to_TO assign_VVI to_II each_DD1 level_NN1 a_AT1 peculiar_JJ time_NNT1 ,_, relatively_RR autonomous_JJ and_CC hence_RR relatively_RR independent_JJ ,_, even_RR in_II its_APPGE dependence_NN1 ,_, of_IO the_AT '_GE times_NNT2 '_GE of_IO the_AT other_JJ levels_NN2 ..._... 
Each_DD1 of_IO these_DD2 peculiar_JJ histories_NN2 is_VBZ punctuated_VVN with_IW peculiar_JJ rhythms_NN2 and_CC can_VM only_RR be_VBI known_VVN on_II condition_NN1 that_CST we_PPIS2 have_VH0 defined_VVN the_AT concept_NN1 of_IO the_AT specificity_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE historical_JJ temporality_NN1 and_CC its_APPGE punctuations_NN2 (_( continuous_JJ development_NN1 ,_, revolutions_NN2 ,_, breaks_NN2 ,_, etc._RA )_) ._. (_( 99100_MC )_) These_DD2 histories_NN2 ,_, their_APPGE temporalities_NN2 defined_VVN according_II21 to_II22 the_AT specific_JJ concepts_NN2 of_IO particular_JJ domains_NN2 ,_, are_VBR not_XX ,_, however_RR ,_, independent_JJ of_IO the_AT whole_NN1 :_: they_PPHS2 are_VBR dependent_JJ on_II it_PPH1 ,_, but_CCB in_II a_AT1 structure_NN1 derived_VVN from_II the_AT '_GE differential_JJ relations_NN2 between_II the_AT different_JJ levels_NN2 within_II the_AT whole_NN1 ..._... the_AT mode_NN1 and_CC degree_NN1 of_IO independence_NN1 of_IO each_DD1 time_NNT1 and_CC history_NN1 is_VBZ therefore_RR necessarily_RR determined_VVN by_II the_AT mode_NN1 and_CC degree_NN1 of_IO dependence_NN1 of_IO each_DD1 level_NN1 within_II the_AT set_NN1 of_IO articulations_NN2 of_IO the_AT whole_NN1 '_GE (_( 100_MC )_) ._. 
So_RR if_CS there_EX are_VBR different_JJ histories_NN2 ,_, they_PPHS2 must_VM nevertheless_RR be_VBI related_VVN to_II those_DD2 other_JJ histories_NN2 from_II which_DDQ they_PPHS2 differ_VV0 but_CCB with_IW which_DDQ they_PPHS2 ,_, articulate_VV0 in_II a_AT1 structure_NN1 of_IO relative_JJ effectivity_NN1 ._. 
Such_DA histories_NN2 are_VBR constituted_VVN according_II21 to_II22 a_AT1 Saussurian_JJ differential_JJ relation_NN1 ._. 
Althusser_NN1 therefore_RR criticizes_VVZ the_AT Annales_FW historians_NN2 for_IF merely_RR arguing_VVG that_CST periodizations_NN2 differ_VV0 for_IF different_JJ times_NNT2 ,_, and_CC that_CST each_DD1 time_NNT1 has_VHZ its_APPGE own_DA rhythms_NN2 ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ not_XX enough_RR ,_, for_IF it_PPH1 is_VBZ also_RR necessary_JJ to_TO '_" think_VVI these_DD2 differences_NN2 in_II rhythm_NN1 and_CC punctuation_NN1 in_II their_APPGE foundation_NN1 ,_, in_II their_APPGE type_NN1 of_IO articulation_NN1 ,_, displacement_NN1 and_CC torsion_NN1 which_DDQ harmonizes_VVZ these_DD2 different_JJ times_NNT2 with_IW one_PPX121 another_PPX122 '_GE though_CS it_PPH1 must_VM be_VBI added_VVN that_CST this_DD1 begs_VVZ the_AT question_NN1 of_IO how_RRQ such_DA harmonization_NN1 is_VBZ achieved_VVN ._. 
For_IF such_DA times_NNT2 are_VBR not_XX even_RR necessarily_RR the_AT obvious_JJ ones_NN2 ,_, '_GE the_AT visible_JJ sequences_NN2 of_IO events_NN2 recorded_VVN by_II the_AT chronicler_NN1 '_GE ,_, they_PPHS2 may_VM be_VBI invisible_JJ ,_, '_GE a_AT1 complex_NN1 '_GE intersection_NN1 '_GE of_IO ..._... different_JJ times_NNT2 ,_, rhythms_NN2 ,_, turnovers_NN2 ,_, etc._RA '_GE ,_, only_RR visible_JJ when_CS their_APPGE particular_JJ concepts_NN2 are_VBR constructed_VVN and_CC produced_JJ '_GE out_II21 of_II22 the_AT differential_JJ nature_NN1 and_CC differential_JJ articulation_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE objects_NN2 in_II the_AT structure_NN1 of_IO the_AT whole_NN1 '_GE (_( 10103_MC )_) ._. 
As_II an_AT1 example_NN1 of_IO what_DDQ he_PPHS1 means_VVZ ,_, Althusser_NP1 refers_VVZ to_II Foucault_NP1 's_GE ,_, remarkable_JJ studies_NN2 '_GE ,_, Madness_NN1 and_CC Civilization_NN1 and_CC The_AT Birth_NN1 of_IO the_AT Clinic_NN1 ,_, two_MC instances_NN2 in_II which_DDQ the_AT historian_NN1 has_VHZ had_VHN to_TO construct_VVI the_AT concept_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE history_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ antipodal_JJ to_II the_AT empirically_RR visible_JJ history_NN1 in_II which_DDQ the_AT time_NNT1 of_IO all_DB histories_NN2 is_VBZ the_AT simple_JJ time_NNT1 of_IO continuity_NN1 and_CC in_II which_DDQ the_AT '_GE content_NN1 '_GE is_VBZ the_AT vacuity_NN1 of_IO events_NN2 that_CST occur_VV0 in_II it_PPH1 which_DDQ one_MC1 later_JJR tries_NN2 to_TO determine_VVI with_IW dividing_VVG procedures_NN2 in_II order_NN1 to_TO '_" periodise_VVI '_" that_DD1 continuity_NN1 ._. 
Instead_II21 of_II22 these_DD2 categories_NN2 ,_, continuity_NN1 and_CC discontinuity_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ summarize_VV0 the_AT banal_JJ mystery_NN1 of_IO all_DB history_NN1 ,_, we_PPIS2 are_VBR dealing_VVG with_IW infinitely_RR more_RGR complex_JJ categories_NN2 specific_JJ to_II each_DD1 type_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ,_, categories_NN2 in_II which_DDQ new_JJ logics_NN2 come_VV0 into_II play._NNU (_( 103_MC )_) This_DD1 means_VVZ that_CST if_CS one_PN1 tries_VVZ to_TO take_VVI an_AT1 '_GE essential_JJ section_NN1 '_GE there_EX is_VBZ no_AT essence_NN1 revealed_VVN which_DDQ is_VBZ the_AT present_NN1 of_IO each_DD1 level_NN1 ;_; indeed_RR the_AT break_NN1 valid_JJ for_IF one_MC1 history_NN1 would_VM not_XX necessarily_RR correspond_VVI to_II that_DD1 valid_JJ for_IF any_DD other_JJ which_DDQ will_VM live_VVI in_II a_AT1 different_JJ time_NNT1 and_CC in_II a_AT1 different_JJ rhythm_NN1 ._. 
The_AT present_NN1 of_IO one_MC1 level_NN1 is_VBZ ,_, so_RR to_TO speak_VVI ,_, the_AT absence_NN1 of_IO another_DD1 ,_, and_CC this_DD1 co-existence_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 '_GE presence_NN1 '_GE and_CC absences_NN2 is_VBZ simply_RR the_AT effect_NN1 of_IO the_AT structure_NN1 of_IO the_AT whole_NN1 in_II its_APPGE articulated_JJ decentricity._NNU (_( 104_MC )_) Any_DD determinate_JJ mode_NN1 of_IO production_NN1 ,_, therefore_RR ,_, will_NN1 evidence_NN1 such_DA a_AT1 form_NN1 of_IO historical_JJ existence_NN1 in_II its_APPGE social_JJ formation_NN1 :_: dislocated_VVD ,_, uneven_JJ ,_, absent_JJ and_CC present_NN1 ._. 
There_EX is_VBZ ,_, Althusser_NP1 stresses_VVZ ,_, no_NN1 '_GE single_JJ ideological_JJ base_NN1 time_NNT1 ,_, to_II which_DDQ all_DB these_DD2 different_JJ temporalities_NN2 can_VM be_VBI related_VVN ,_, no_AT ordinary_JJ '_GE single_JJ continuous_JJ reference_NN1 time_NNT1 '_GE which_DDQ they_PPHS2 can_VM be_VBI seen_VVN to_TO dislocate_VVI (_( 105_MC )_) ._. 
This_DD1 differential_JJ account_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 requires_VVZ us_PPIO2 to_TO rethink_VVI a_AT1 whole_JJ series_NN of_IO common_JJ notions_NN2 such_II21 as_II22 unevenness_NN1 of_IO development_NN1 ,_, of_IO survivals_NN2 ,_, backwardness_NN1 ,_, even_RR ,_, Althusser_NP1 claims_VVZ ,_, the_AT contemporary_JJ economic_JJ practice_NN1 of_IO under-development'_JJ notions_NN2 that_CST provide_VV0 the_AT very_JJ basis_NN1 of_IO Western_JJ ethnocentrism_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 also_RR means_VVZ that_CST there_EX can_VM be_VBI no_AT history_NN1 in_RR21 general_RR22 ,_, only_RR specific_JJ structures_NN2 of_IO historicity_NN1 ._. 
Nor_CC is_VBZ history_NN1 an_AT1 evolving_JJ totality_NN1 ;_; each_DD1 mode_NN1 of_IO production_NN1 is_VBZ made_VVN up_RP of_IO differentiated_JJ histories_NN2 ._. 
These_DD2 differentiated_VVN histories_NN2 form_VV0 a_AT1 specific_JJ historical_JJ totality_NN1 ,_, for_IF each_DD1 history_NN1 operates_VVZ within_II the_AT general_JJ totality_NN1 of_IO the_AT mode_NN1 of_IO production_NN1 ._. 
The_AT economic_JJ therefore_RR determines_VVZ each_DD1 history_NN1 or_CC level_NN1 to_II the_AT extent_NN1 that_CST its_APPGE history_NN1 is_VBZ structured_VVN differentially_RR against_II the_AT totality_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ defined_VVN as_II a_AT1 specific_JJ mode_NN1 of_IO production_NN1 ._. 
If_CS for_IF Hegel_NP1 historical_JJ time_NNT1 is_VBZ the_AT reflection_NN1 in_II time_NNT1 of_IO the_AT essence_NN1 of_IO the_AT historical_JJ totality_NN1 ,_, for_IF Althusser_NN1 it_PPH1 is_VBZ a_AT1 function_NN1 of_IO the_AT structure_NN1 of_IO the_AT totality_NN1 arising_VVG from_II a_AT1 particular_JJ mode_NN1 of_IO production_NN1 ._. 
No_AT totality_NN1 has_VHZ a_AT1 necessary_JJ transcendence_NN1 embodied_VVN within_II it_PPH1 ;_; as_II21 for_II22 the_AT later_JJR Sartre_NP1 ,_, the_AT course_NN1 of_IO historical_JJ change_NN1 is_VBZ open_JJ and_CC will_VM work_VVI only_RR through_II the_AT overdetermination_NN1 of_IO particular_JJ historical_JJ conjunctures_NN2 ._. 
Althusser_NN1 suggests_VVZ that_CST although_CS Marxist_JJ history_NN1 is_VBZ defined_VVN as_II a_AT1 theory_NN1 of_IO the_AT modes_NN2 of_IO production_NN1 ,_, Marx_NP1 did_VDD not_XX give_VVI us_PPIO2 any_DD theory_NN1 of_IO how_RRQ the_AT transition_NN1 was_VBDZ effected_VVN from_II one_MC1 mode_NN1 of_IO production_NN1 to_II another_DD1 ,_, nor_CC of_IO how_RRQ each_DD1 mode_NN1 of_IO production_NN1 was_VBDZ constituted_VVN ._. 
Much_DA1 of_IO the_AT effort_NN1 of_IO Althusserian_JJ Marxism_NN1 was_VBDZ taken_VVN up_RP with_IW trying_VVG to_TO produce_VVI such_DA a_AT1 theory_NN1 ,_, and_CC it_PPH1 was_VBDZ the_AT failure_NN1 to_TO produce_VVI it_PPH1 that_RG perhaps_RR was_VBDZ the_AT main_JJ reason_NN1 for_IF its_APPGE subsequent_JJ collapse_NN1 ._. 
Althusser_NP1 's_GE influence_NN1 declined_VVN in_II France_NP1 after_II 1968_MC ,_, partly_RR as_II a_AT1 result_NN1 of_IO the_AT role_NN1 played_VVN by_II the_AT PCF_NP1 ,_, of_IO which_DDQ Althusser_NP1 was_VBDZ a_AT1 member_NN1 ,_, in_II the_AT events_NN2 of_IO May_NPM1 1968_MC ,_, and_CC partly_RR as_II an_AT1 effect_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 number_NN1 of_IO critiques_NN2 of_IO his_APPGE work_NN1 ,_, some_DD of_IO them_PPHO2 by_II Althusser_NP1 himself_PPX1 ._. 
In_II Britain_NP1 by_II contrast_NN1 Althusser_NP1 's_GE greatest_JJT impact_NN1 occurred_VVD in_II the_AT decade_NNT1 that_CST followed_VVD :_: from_II the_AT late_JJ sixties_MC2 his_APPGE work_NN1 constituted_VVD something_PN1 like_II a_AT1 hegemonic_JJ '_GE theory_NN1 in_II dominance_NN1 '_GE ._. 
After_II 1978_MC ,_, however_RR ,_, the_AT influence_NN1 of_IO Althusser_NP1 declined_VVD rapidly_RR after_II a_AT1 series_NN of_IO books_NN2 by_II two_MC Marxist_JJ sociologists_NN2 ,_, Barry_NP1 Hindess_NP1 and_CC Paul_NP1 Hirst_NP1 ,_, who_PNQS developed_VVD and_CC extended_VVD the_AT implications_NN2 of_IO those_DD2 critiques_NN2 already_RR made_VVN in_II France_NP1 ._. 
Their_APPGE work_NN1 made_VVD it_PPH1 impossible_JJ henceforth_RT to_TO invoke_VVI the_AT work_NN1 of_IO Althusser_NN1 in_II Britain_NP1 without_IW reference_NN1 to_II the_AT problems_NN2 which_DDQ they_PPHS2 had_VHD articulated_VVN ._. 
With_IW Hindess_NP1 and_CC Hirst_NP1 criticism_NN1 of_IO Althusser_NP1 's_GE theory_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 shifted_VVN to_II the_AT problematic_JJ of_IO the_AT relation_NN1 of_IO the_AT concept_NN1 (_( increasingly_RR assimilated_VVN to_II representation_NN1 )_) to_II the_AT real_JJ ,_, thus_RR reducing_VVG it_PPH1 to_II a_AT1 question_NN1 of_IO epistemology_NN1 ._. 
Where_RRQ ,_, though_CS ,_, does_VDZ this_DD1 leave_VVI the_AT concept_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 in_II Althusser_NP1 ?_? 
Does_VDZ it_PPH1 have_VHI its_APPGE own_DA specificity_NN1 aside_II21 from_II22 the_AT problems_NN2 of_IO the_AT subject_NN1 ,_, representation_NN1 ,_, narrative_JJ and_CC interpretation_NN1 ,_, with_IW which_DDQ many_DA2 have_VH0 now_RT shown_VVN that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ necessarily_RR involved_VVN ?_? 
Does_VDZ this_DD1 mean_VVI ,_, as_CSA Hirst_NP1 suggests_VVZ ,_, that_CST the_AT only_JJ concept_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 must_VM in_II fact_NN1 still_RR be_VBI the_AT Hegelian_JJ one_PN1 ?_? :_: 
Teleology_NN1 and_CC spirituality_NN1 are_VBR essential_JJ mechanisms_NN2 of_IO all_DB philosophies_NN2 of_IO history_NN1 ._. 
And_CC ,_, save_II21 for_II22 mindless_JJ antiquarianism_NN1 or_CC utter_JJ scepticism_NN1 ,_, there_EX can_VM be_VBI no_AT history_NN1 without_IW a_AT1 philosophy_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ in_II the_AT philosophy_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 that_CST the_AT past_NN1 becomes_VVZ a_AT1 possible_JJ and_CC rational_JJ object_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ through_II the_AT conception_NN1 of_IO historical_JJ time_NNT1 as_II a_AT1 continuum_NN1 that_CST the_AT past_NN1 becomes_VVZ a_AT1 coherent_JJ object_NN1 ._. 
For_IF Hirst_NP1 this_DD1 means_VVZ that_CST there_EX can_VM be_VBI no_AT Marxist_NN1 '_GE science_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 '_GE that_DD1 can_VM be_VBI opposed_VVN to_II the_AT essentialism_NN1 and_CC teleology_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 philosophy_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ._. 
Althusser_NP1 's_GE mistake_NN1 ,_, according_II21 to_II22 Hirst_NP1 ,_, was_VBDZ to_TO attempt_VVI to_TO construct_VVI another_DD1 philosophy_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ;_; but_CCB any_DD theory_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 contends_VVZ ,_, can_VM not_XX do_VDI without_IW teleology_NN1 ,_, spirituality_NN1 (_( the_AT realization_NN1 of_IO the_AT Idea_NN1 )_) ,_, and_CC the_AT continuum_NN1 ._. 
On_II the_AT other_JJ hand_NN1 ,_, we_PPIS2 would_VM add_VVI that_CST the_AT lesson_NN1 of_IO Hegel_NP1 's_GE ,_, Marx_NP1 's_GE ,_, and_CC Sartre_NP1 's_GE attempt_NN1 also_RR suggests_VVZ that_DD1 history_NN1 can_VM not_XX be_VBI coherently_RR essentialist_JJ and_CC teleological_JJ either_RR ._. 
Hirst_NP1 's_GE straightforward_JJ characterization_NN1 of_IO Althusser_NP1 's_GE work_NN1 as_58 '_GE a_AT1 failure_NN1 '_GE does_VDZ not_XX acknowledge_VVI the_AT constant_JJ tension_NN1 in_II the_AT historical_JJ project_NN1 itself_PPX1 ._. 
If_CS Sartre_NP1 's_GE endeavour_NN1 to_II ground_NN1 the_AT Marxist_JJ science_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 suggests_VVZ that_CST the_AT Hegelian_JJ totality_NN1 and_CC continuum_NN1 can_VM only_RR work_VVI by_II a_AT1 continual_JJ labour_NN1 of_IO excluding_VVG the_AT partial_JJ and_CC discontinuous_JJ ,_, Althusser_NP1 's_GE effort_NN1 to_TO constitute_VVI a_AT1 differentiated_JJ history_NN1 shows_VVZ that_CST you_PPY can_VM not_XX do_VDI it_PPH1 without_IW a_AT1 teleology_NN1 ._. 
What_DDQ both_DB2 demonstrate_VV0 is_VBZ that_CST any_DD history_NN1 as_CSA such_DA has_VHZ to_TO think_VVI both_RR ,_, simultaneously_RR ._. 
As_CS31 long_CS32 as_CS33 history_NN1 is_VBZ assumed_VVN to_TO operate_VVI according_II21 to_II22 the_AT protocols_NN2 of_IO a_AT1 conventional_JJ logic_NN1 ,_, where_CS a_AT1 contradiction_NN1 simply_RR means_VVZ you_PPY can_VM not_XX think_VVI it_PPH1 or_CC do_VD0 it_PPH1 as_CSA Hirst_NP1 supposes_VVZ ,_, then_RT it_PPH1 remains_VVZ at_II the_AT impasse_NN1 he_PPHS1 describes_VVZ ._. 
Althusser_NP1 's_GE significant_JJ contribution_NN1 was_VBDZ to_TO problematize_VVI the_AT concept_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 by_II addressing_VVG its_APPGE presuppositions_NN2 about_II temporality_NN1 an_AT1 area_NN1 which_DDQ Hindess_VV0 and_CC Hirst_NP1 altogether_RR neglect_VV0 ._. 
In_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO make_VVI their_APPGE claim_NN1 that_CST his_APPGE decentred_JJ totality_NN1 is_VBZ still_RR expressive_JJ and_CC therefore_RR essentialist_NN1 ,_, they_PPHS2 have_VH0 to_TO ignore_VVI the_AT arguments_NN2 about_II temporality_NN1 in_II the_AT critique_NN1 of_IO the_AT Hegelian_JJ essential_JJ section_NN1 as_58 '_GE the_AT co-existence_NN1 of_IO presence_NN1 '_GE ,_, and_CC thus_RR fail_VV0 to_TO do_VDI justice_NN1 to_II the_AT way_NN1 in_II which_DDQ Althusser_NN1 constructs_NN2 ,_, as_CSA Foucault_NP1 puts_VVZ it_PPH1 ,_, '_GE a_AT1 counter-memory_NN1 a_AT1 transformation_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 into_II a_AT1 totally_RR different_JJ form_NN1 of_IO time_NNT1 '_GE ._. 
If_CS the_AT Althusserian_JJ mode_NN1 of_IO production_NN1 is_VBZ made_VVN up_RP of_IO differential_JJ times_NNT2 and_CC histories_NN2 ,_, '_GE a_AT1 complex_NN1 '_GE intersection_NN1 '_GE of_IO the_AT different_JJ times_NNT2 ,_, rhythms_NN2 ,_, turnovers_NN2 ,_, etc._RA '_GE ,_, then_RT each_DD1 element_NN1 can_VM not_XX express_VVI the_AT whole_NN1 because_CS the_AT whole_NN1 is_VBZ only_RR accessible_JJ as_II a_AT1 concept_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ is_VBZ precisely_RR not_XX expressed_VVN at_RR21 all_RR22 ._. 
For_IF the_AT concept_NN1 ,_, '_GE like_II every_AT1 concept_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ never_RR immediately_RR '_GE given_JJ '_GE ,_, never_RR legible_JJ in_II visible_JJ reality_NN1 :_: like_II every_AT1 concept_NN1 this_DD1 concept_NN1 must_VM be_VBI produced_VVN ,_, constructed_JJ '_GE by_II the_AT analyst_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 formulation_NN1 enabled_VVD Althusser_NP1 to_TO theorize_VVI a_AT1 decentred_JJ totality_NN1 which_DDQ allowed_VVD the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO differences_NN2 without_IW reducing_VVG each_DD1 instance_NN1 to_II the_AT operation_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 essence_NN1 or_CC a_AT1 single_JJ principle_NN1 ,_, such_II21 as_II22 the_AT dialectic_NN1 ._. 
If_CS his_APPGE notion_NN1 of_IO the_AT mode_NN1 of_IO production_NN1 as_CSA such_DA a_AT1 totality_NN1 could_VM not_XX be_VBI sustained_VVN in_II a_AT1 differential_JJ relation_NN1 to_II other_JJ modes_NN2 of_IO production_NN1 (_( notions_NN2 of_IO residual_JJ and_CC emergent_JJ forms_NN2 notwithstanding_RR )_) ,_, Althusser_NP1 nevertheless_RR offered_VVN a_AT1 particularly_RR interesting_JJ theorization_NN1 of_IO the_AT problems_NN2 involved_JJ in_II the_AT concept_NN1 of_IO the_AT historical_JJ ,_, articulating_VVG the_AT paradoxical_JJ conditions_NN2 of_IO any_DD theorization_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ._. 
If_CS he_PPHS1 showed_VVD it_PPH1 to_TO be_VBI an_AT1 impossible_JJ concept_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 continued_VVD to_TO demonstrate_VVI that_CST it_PPH1 remains_VVZ a_AT1 necessary_JJ one_PN1 ,_, and_CC acknowledged_VVD that_CST we_PPIS2 must_VM learn_VVI to_TO live_VVI with_IW that_DD1 impossibility_NN1 ._. 
How_RRQ does_VDZ this_DD1 take_VVI place_NN1 ?_? 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ at_II this_DD1 point_NN1 that_CST the_AT subject_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 re-enters_VVZ ;_; history_NN1 may_VM be_VBI a_AT1 process_NN1 without_IW one_PN1 ,_, but_CCB the_AT subject_NN1 is_VBZ nevertheless_RR inscribed_VVN within_II history_NN1 ._. 
Once_RR21 again_RR22 ,_, as_II21 for_II22 Sartre_NP1 ,_, the_AT subject_NN1 operates_VVZ at_II the_AT pivot_NN1 of_IO the_AT paradox_NN1 ._. 
For_IF the_AT subject_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX understand_VVI history_NN1 according_II21 to_II22 its_APPGE scientific_JJ formulation_NN1 ,_, but_CCB undergoes_VVZ the_AT process_NN1 of_IO inter-pellation_NN1 at_II the_AT level_NN1 of_IO ideology_NN1 ,_, and_CC thus_RR experiences_VVZ it_PPH1 through_II the_AT formulas_NN2 of_IO historicism_NN1 ._. 
History_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ can_VM now_RT no_RR21 longer_RR22 be_VBI considered_VVN a_AT1 concept_NN1 as_II such_DA ,_, is_VBZ therefore_RR made_VVN up_RP of_IO the_AT incommensurable_JJ relation_NN1 between_II these_DD2 two_MC disjunctive_JJ set-ups_NN2 ._. 
It_PPH1 therefore_RR operates_VVZ for_IF Althusser_NP1 both_RR at_II the_AT level_NN1 of_IO science_NN1 and_CC of_IO ideology_NN1 ,_, not_XX in_II31 terms_II32 of_II33 truth_NN1 to_II falsity_NN1 ,_, but_CCB as_II an_AT1 irresolvable_JJ dialectic_NN1 between_II the_AT differential_JJ relations_NN2 of_IO the_AT mode_NN1 of_IO production_NN1 and_CC the_AT historicism_NN1 of_IO the_AT ideological_JJ notion_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ._. 
Hence_RR his_APPGE argument_NN1 that_DD1 '_VBZ the_AT knowledge_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 is_VBZ no_AT more_RGR historical_JJ than_CSN the_AT knowledge_NN1 of_IO sugar_NN1 is_VBZ sweet_JJ '_GE ._. 
What_DDQ then_RT is_VBZ the_AT relation_NN1 of_IO science_NN1 to_II ideology_NN1 ,_, of_IO Althusserian_JJ history_NN1 to_II its_APPGE ideological_JJ historicist_NN1 formulation_NN1 ?_? 
The_AT gap_NN1 between_II them_PPHO2 ,_, according_II21 to_II22 Althusser_NP1 ,_, is_VBZ mediated_VVN by_II art_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 statement_NN1 is_VBZ often_RR regarded_VVN as_II a_AT1 curious_JJ relic_NN1 of_IO the_AT values_NN2 of_IO bourgeois_JJ culture_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB it_PPH1 is_VBZ also_RR possible_JJ to_TO see_VVI it_PPH1 as_II an_AT1 attempt_NN1 to_TO formulate_VVI the_AT way_NN1 in_II which_DDQ the_AT sliding_JJ incompatibility_NN1 of_IO the_AT two_MC can_VM only_RR be_VBI perceived_VVN through_II an_AT1 '_GE internal_JJ distantiation_NN1 '_GE in_II which_DDQ the_AT problem_NN1 of_IO that_DD1 '_VBZ relation_NN1 '_GE is_VBZ enacted_VVN by_II its_APPGE relation_NN1 ,_, in_II the_AT sense_NN1 of_IO the_AT telling_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 story_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ how_RRQ we_PPIS2 get_VV0 history_NN1 ._. 
If_CS history_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 process_NN1 ,_, Althusser_NP1 remarks_VVZ ,_, '_" there_EX is_VBZ no_AT such_DA thing_NN1 as_II a_AT1 process_NN1 except_CS in_II relations_NN2 &lsqb;_( sous_JJ des_NP1 rapports_NN2 &rsqb;_) '_GE ._. 
History_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 matter_NN1 of_IO relations_NN2 ,_, and_CC thus_RR of_IO writing_VVG reports_NN2 ._. 
Althusser_NN1 thus_RR suggests_VVZ that_DD1 history_NN1 can_VM only_RR be_VBI thought_VVN through_RP as_II a_AT1 permanent_JJ contradiction_NN1 :_: it_PPH1 is_VBZ a_AT1 totality_NN1 ,_, but_CCB that_DD1 totality_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 decentred_JJ structure_NN1 in_II dominance_NN1 in_II which_DDQ each_DD1 history_NN1 's_GE history_NN1 is_VBZ defined_VVN not_XX through_II its_APPGE identity_NN1 with_IW ,_, or_CC difference_NN1 from_II ,_, a_AT1 general_JJ history_NN1 but_CCB by_II being_VBG differentiated_VVN from_II every_AT1 other_JJ history_NN1 ,_, on_II which_DDQ it_PPH1 is_VBZ necessarily_RR also_RR therefore_RR dependent_JJ ,_, in_II a_AT1 kind_NN1 of_IO negative_JJ totalization_NN1 ._. 
Within_II the_AT realm_NN1 of_IO ideology_NN1 ,_, on_II the_AT other_JJ hand_NN1 ,_, history_NN1 is_VBZ experienced_VVN by_II subjects_NN2 as_II a_AT1 purposive_JJ continuum_NN1 ,_, with_IW themselves_PPX2 as_CSA its_APPGE subject_NN1 ._. 
Another_DD1 way_NN1 of_IO putting_VVG this_DD1 would_VM be_VBI to_TO say_VVI that_CST Althusser_NP1 demonstrated_VVD that_CST according_II21 to_II22 the_AT protocols_NN2 of_IO conventional_JJ logic_NN1 ,_, history_NN1 is_VBZ impossible_JJ ._. 
If_CS you_PPY try_VV0 to_TO think_VVI of_IO it_PPH1 as_II a_AT1 closed_JJ totality_NN1 you_PPY get_VV0 into_II the_AT problems_NN2 of_IO historicism_NN1 ;_; if_CS you_PPY try_VV0 to_TO think_VVI of_IO it_PPH1 as_RG entirely_RR differentiated_VVN ,_, then_RT it_PPH1 becomes_VVZ meaningless_JJ since_CS there_EX is_VBZ no_AT necessary_JJ connection_NN1 ,_, positive_JJ or_CC negative_JJ ,_, to_II anything_PN1 else_RR ,_, nor_CC would_VM any_DD one_MC1 history_NN1 produce_VV0 any_DD effect_NN1 on_II another_DD1 ._. 
Any_DD differential_JJ theory_NN1 of_IO identity_NN1 must_VM think_VVI both_RR totality_NN1 and_CC difference_NN1 simultaneously_RR ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ this_DD1 structure_NN1 which_DDQ both_DB2 Sartre_NP1 's_GE '_GE singular_JJ universal_JJ ,_, and_CC Althusser_NP1 's_GE relative_JJ autonomy_NN1 within_II a_AT1 structure_NN1 in_II dominance_NN1 attempt_NN1 to_TO formulate_VVI ,_, and_CC in_II both_DB2 cases_NN2 the_AT in-between_II of_IO such_DA simultaneity_NN1 emerges_VVZ as_CSA the_AT process_NN1 of_IO writing_VVG itself_PPX1 ._. 
V_ZZ1 '_GE IF_CS THERE_EX IS_VBZ HISTORY_NN1 '_GE :_: HISTORY_NN1 ,_, HERMENEUTICS_NP1 AND_CC HISTORICITY_NN1 With_IW Sartre_NP1 and_CC Althusser_NN1 we_PPIS2 encounter_VV0 the_AT two_MC poles_NN2 of_IO post-war_JJ French_JJ return-to-Marxism_NN1 ._. 
Although_CS both_DB2 could_VM be_VBI said_VVN to_TO be_VBI reacting_VVG against_II the_AT ossification_NN1 of_IO Stalinism_NN1 ,_, the_AT subjectivist_NN1 and_CC ultra-objectivist_NN1 paths_NN2 that_CST they_PPHS2 followed_VVD were_VBDR antithetical_JJ ._. 
This_DD1 schematic_JJ characterization_NN1 ,_, however_RR ,_, does_VDZ not_XX do_VDI justice_NN1 either_RR to_II the_AT manner_NN1 in_II which_DDQ they_PPHS2 attempted_VVD to_TO keep_VVI both_DB2 poles_NN2 in_II play_NN1 at_RR21 once_RR22 ,_, nor_CC to_II the_AT way_NN1 in_II which_DDQ they_PPHS2 came_VVD to_TO concede_VVI the_AT impossibility_NN1 of_IO the_AT theoretical_JJ projects_NN2 which_DDQ they_PPHS2 undertook_VVD ._. 
To_TO dismiss_VVI them_PPHO2 as_CSA failures_NN2 on_II this_DD1 account_NN1 ,_, however_RR ,_, would_VM be_VBI merely_RR reductive_JJ ._. 
Their_APPGE real_JJ force_NN1 can_VM be_VBI discerned_VVN from_II the_AT extent_NN1 to_II which_DDQ the_AT problematics_NN1 they_PPHS2 set_VV0 up_RP have_VH0 continued_VVN to_TO exercise_VVI subsequent_JJ writers_NN2 ._. 
Since_CS Sartre_NP1 and_CC Althusser_NP1 no_PN121 one_PN122 has_VHZ attempted_VVN a_AT1 new_JJ theorization_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 Marxist_JJ history_NN1 ._. 
We_PPIS2 are_VBR not_XX ,_, therefore_RR ,_, now_RT looking_VVG at_II another_DD1 paradigm_NN1 ,_, another_DD1 system_NN1 ._. 
Rather_II21 than_II22 attempting_VVG to_TO repeat_VVI and_CC surpass_VVI the_AT exalted_JJ projects_NN2 of_IO Sartre_NP1 or_CC Althusser_NN1 in_II a_AT1 new_JJ guise_NN1 ,_, later_JJR writers_NN2 such_II21 as_II22 Foucault_NP1 or_CC Derrida_NP1 learnt_VVD a_AT1 lesson_NN1 from_II history_NN1 ,_, and_CC stopped_VVD to_TO ask_VVI why_RRQ such_DA comprehensive_JJ theories_NN2 ,_, like_II so_RG many_DA2 of_IO those_DD2 which_DDQ preceded_VVD them_PPHO2 ,_, could_VM not_XX hold_VVI together_RL ._. 
For_IF the_AT grand_JJ narrative_NN1 of_IO History_NN1 was_VBDZ always_RR too_RG big_JJ for_IF its_APPGE boots_NN2 ._. 
Instead_RR ,_, therefore_RR ,_, of_IO excluding_VVG history_NN1 as_CSA has_VHZ so_RG often_RR been_VBN claimed_VVN ,_, such_DA thinkers_NN2 begin_VV0 ,_, in_II a_AT1 rather_RG more_RGR conventional_JJ way_NN1 ,_, from_II the_AT anti-historicist_JJ perspectives_NN2 of_IO Althusser_NP1 ,_, even_RR ,_, arguably_RR ,_, of_IO Sartre_NP1 ._. 
The_AT generic_JJ label_NN1 '_GE poststructuralist_NN1 '_GE is_VBZ here_RL useful_JJ merely_RR as_II a_AT1 shorthand_NN1 to_TO designate_VVI those_DD2 contemporary_JJ writers_NN2 who_PNQS share_VV0 not_XX a_AT1 hostility_NN1 to_II history_NN1 as_CSA such_DA but_CCB a_AT1 distrust_NN1 of_IO simple_JJ historicisms_NN2 ._. 
Lyotard_NN1 ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, is_VBZ best_RRT known_VVN for_IF his_APPGE scepticism_NN1 towards_II historicist_NN1 universal_JJ narratives_NN2 ,_, advocating_VVG instead_RR the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 multiplicity_NN1 of_IO heterogeneous_JJ ,_, conflicting_JJ and_CC incommensurable_JJ histories_NN2 ._. 
Foucault_VV0 works_NN from_II exactly_RR the_AT same_DA tradition_NN1 in_II the_AT philosophy_NN1 and_CC history_NN1 of_IO science_NN1 as_CSA Althusser_NP1 :_: like_II him_PPHO1 he_PPHS1 utilizes_VVZ Bachelard_NP1 's_GE concept_NN1 of_IO differentiated_JJ histories_NN2 ,_, which_DDQ still_JJ stands_NN2 as_II the_AT major_JJ alternative_NN1 ,_, epistemic_JJ or_CC otherwise_RR ,_, to_II historicism_NN1 ._. 
If_CS such_DA a_AT1 theorization_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ,_, as_CSA diacritical_JJ and_CC singular_NN1 ,_, articulated_VVN according_II21 to_II22 breaks_NN2 and_CC ruptures_NN2 ,_, was_VBDZ by_RR31 no_RR32 means_RR33 new_JJ even_RR with_IW Althusser_NP1 ,_, it_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN continued_VVN as_II a_AT1 self-conscious_JJ derivation_NN1 from_II him_PPHO1 by_II Derrida_NP1 ._. 
In_II Positions_NN2 Derrida_NP1 comments_VVZ :_: Althusser_NP1 's_GE entire_JJ ,_, and_CC necessary_JJ ,_, critique_NN1 of_IO the_AT '_GE Hegelian_NN1 '_GE concept_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 and_CC of_IO the_AT notion_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 expressive_JJ totality_NN1 ,_, etc._RA ,_, aims_VVZ at_II showing_VVG that_CST there_EX is_VBZ not_XX one_MC1 single_JJ history_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 general_JJ history_NN1 ,_, but_CCB rather_RR histories_NN2 different_JJ in_II their_APPGE type_NN1 ,_, rhythm_NN1 ,_, mode_NN1 of_IO inscription_NN1 intervallic_NN1 ,_, differentiated_VVD histories_NN2 ._. 
I_PPIS1 have_VH0 always_RR subscribed_VVN to_II this_DD1 ._. 
Contrary_II21 to_II22 the_AT claims_NN2 of_IO certain_JJ American_JJ commentators_NN2 ,_, Derrida_NP1 's_GE uncharacteristically_RR emphatic_JJ endorsement_NN1 here_RL of_IO Althusser_NP1 's_GE project_NN1 with_II31 regard_II32 to_II33 the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO '_GE intervallic_JJ ,_, differentiated_JJ '_GE histories_NN2 ,_, suggests_VVZ the_AT problems_NN2 involved_JJ in_II invoking_VVG Althusser_NN1 as_II an_AT1 '_GE answer_NN1 '_GE to_II Derrida_NP1 ;_; both_DB2 are_VBR equally_RR distrustful_JJ of_IO any_DD form_NN1 of_IO Hegelian_JJ historicism_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 does_VDZ not_XX ,_, however_RR ,_, mean_VV0 that_CST they_PPHS2 then_RT take_VV0 up_RP identical_JJ positions_NN2 in_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 the_AT problem_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ._. 
Derrida_NN1 has_VHZ not_XX been_VBN concerned_JJ to_TO formulate_VVI a_AT1 new_JJ philosophy_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ;_; nor_CC has_VHZ he_PPHS1 attempted_VVN to_TO specify_VVI new_JJ methodologies_NN2 in_II the_AT manner_NN1 of_IO Foucault_NN1 ._. 
Describing_VVG himself_PPX1 as_II '_GE very_RG wary_JJ of_IO the_AT concept_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 '_GE ,_, Derrida_NP1 has_VHZ rather_RR attempted_VVN to_TO shift_VVI the_AT problem_NN1 away_II21 from_II22 the_AT conceptual_JJ analysis_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 as_II an_AT1 '_GE Idea_NN1 '_GE which_DDQ ,_, perhaps_RR more_DAR than_CSN anything_PN1 else_RR ,_, has_VHZ proved_VVN to_TO be_VBI Hegel_NP1 's_GE most_RGT enduring_JJ legacy_NN1 ,_, towards_II an_AT1 analysis_NN1 of_IO the_AT interstices_NN2 in_II the_AT implications_NN2 of_IO the_AT general_JJ system_NN1 in_II which_DDQ it_PPH1 operates_VVZ ._. 
In_II the_AT first_MD instance_NN1 ,_, therefore_RR ,_, he_PPHS1 focuses_VVZ not_XX on_II history_NN1 as_CSA such_DA but_CCB on_II the_AT related_JJ problem_NN1 of_IO hermeneutics_NN2 and_CC historical_JJ understanding_NN1 :_: history_NN1 here_RL becomes_VVZ a_AT1 problem_NN1 of_IO meaning_NN1 and_CC interpretation_NN1 '_GE the_AT age_NN1 already_RR in_II the_AT past_NN1 is_VBZ in_II fact_NN1 constituted_VVN in_II every_AT1 respect_NN1 as_II a_AT1 text_NN1 '_GE ._. 
This_DD1 also_RR involves_VVZ an_AT1 inquiry_NN1 into_II the_AT ways_NN2 in_II which_DDQ the_AT critique_NN1 of_IO the_AT sign_NN1 affects_VVZ historical_JJ representation_NN1 ,_, and_CC the_AT dependence_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 on_II the_AT genetic_JJ metaphor_NN1 and_CC on_II narrative_NN1 ._. 
Important_JJ though_CS these_DD2 issues_NN2 are_VBR ,_, Derrida_NP1 's_GE major_JJ contribution_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN his_APPGE insistence_NN1 that_CST history_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 metaphysical_JJ concept_NN1 according_II21 to_II22 which_DDQ the_AT meaning_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 always_RR amounts_VVZ to_II the_AT history_NN1 of_IO meaning_NN1 ._. 
As_CSA he_PPHS1 himself_PPX1 puts_VVZ it_PPH1 :_: From_II the_AT first_MD texts_NN2 I_PPIS1 published_VVD ,_, I_PPIS1 have_VH0 attempted_VVN to_TO systematize_VVI a_AT1 deconstructive_JJ critique_NN1 precisely_RR against_II the_AT authority_NN1 of_IO meaning_NN1 ,_, as_CSA the_AT transcendental_JJ signified_JJ or_CC as_CSA telos_NN2 ,_, in_II other_JJ words_NN2 ,_, history_NN1 determined_VVN in_II the_AT last_MD analysis_NN1 as_II the_AT history_NN1 of_IO meaning_NN1 ,_, history_NN1 in_II its_APPGE logocentric_JJ ,_, metaphysical_JJ ,_, idealist_NN1 ..._... representation_NN1 ._. 
The_AT Derridean_JJ critique_NN1 of_IO logocentrism_NN1 necessarily_RR includes_VVZ the_AT concept_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 insofar_CS21 as_CS22 it_PPH1 depends_VVZ on_II notions_NN2 of_IO presence_NN1 and_CC meaning_VVG determined_JJ as_CSA truth_NN1 ._. 
For_IF all_DB its_APPGE frequent_JJ invocation_NN1 as_II the_AT '_GE concrete_NN1 '_GE ,_, history_NN1 must_VM by_II definition_NN1 entail_VV0 a_AT1 problematic_JJ represencing_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 absence_NN1 ;_; Derrida_NP1 therefore_RR argues_VVZ that_CST ,_, even_RR in_II its_58 '_GE materialist_NN1 '_GE conceptualization_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 can_VM not_XX avoid_VVI a_AT1 certain_JJ metaphysics_NN2 ._. 
As_RG early_RR as_CSA the_AT 1966_MC essay_NN1 '_GE Structure_NN1 ,_, Sign_VV0 ,_, and_CC Play_NN1 '_GE ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, he_PPHS1 maintains_VVZ that_CST his_APPGE analysis_NN1 of_IO the_AT paradoxical_JJ metaphysics_NN1 of_IO '_GE the_AT centre_NN1 '_GE is_VBZ equally_RR applicable_JJ to_II the_AT historical_JJ notions_NN2 of_IO '_GE origin'_NN1 and_CC '_GE end_NN1 '_GE ._. 
History_NN1 consists_VVZ of_IO a_AT1 concept_NN1 which_DDQ has_VHZ always_RR been_VBN in_II complicity_NN1 with_IW a_AT1 teleological_JJ and_CC eschatological_JJ metaphysics_NN2 ,_, in_II other_JJ words_NN2 ,_, paradoxically_RR ,_, in_II complicity_NN1 with_IW that_DD1 philosophy_NN1 of_IO presence_NN1 to_II which_DDQ it_PPH1 was_VBDZ believed_VVN history_NN1 could_VM be_VBI opposed_VVN ._. 
The_AT thematic_JJ of_IO historicity_NN1 ..._... has_VHZ always_RR been_VBN required_VVN by_II the_AT determination_NN1 of_IO Being_VBG as_CSA presence_NN1 ..._... 
History_NN1 has_VHZ always_RR been_VBN conceived_VVN as_II the_AT movement_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 resumption_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ,_, as_CSA a_AT1 detour_NN1 between_II two_MC presences_NN2 ._. 
Derrida_NP1 's_GE deconstruction_NN1 of_IO the_AT notion_NN1 of_IO presence_NN1 by_II the_AT logics_NN2 of_IO the_AT '_GE always_RR already_RR '_GE and_CC '_GE originary_JJ repetition_NN1 '_GE inevitably_RR conflict_VV0 with_IW a_AT1 history_NN1 constructed_VVN in_II31 terms_II32 of_II33 a_AT1 teleological_JJ movement_NN1 from_II an_AT1 origin_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ can_VM always_RR be_VBI reawakened_VVN ,_, towards_II the_AT self-realization_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 idea_NN1 '_GE whose_DDQGE end_NN1 may_VM always_RR be_VBI anticipated_VVN in_II the_AT form_NN1 of_IO presence_NN1 '_GE ._. 
The_AT meaning_NN1 of_IO such_DA a_AT1 history_NN1 will_VM always_RR be_VBI determined_VVN through_II appeal_NN1 to_II a_AT1 transcendental_JJ signified_JJ ,_, whereas_CS a_AT1 deconstructive_JJ analysis_NN1 will_VM demonstrate_VVI the_AT simultaneous_JJ effects_NN2 of_IO the_AT lack_NN1 of_IO such_DA an_AT1 authority_NN1 ._. 
More_RGR radically_RR still_RR ,_, Derrida_NP1 works_VVZ at_II the_AT limits_NN2 of_IO any_DD possible_JJ philosophy_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ,_, arguing_VVG that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX just_RR that_CST the_AT problems_NN2 of_IO hermeneutics_NN2 ,_, specifically_RR of_IO interpretation_NN1 and_CC language_NN1 ,_, affect_VV0 historical_JJ understanding_NN1 ,_, but_CCB that_DD1 what_DDQ in_II a_AT1 broad_JJ sense_NN1 he_PPHS1 calls_VVZ writing_NN1 ,_, or_CC diffrance_NN1 ,_, determines_VVZ history_NN1 ._. 
At_II the_AT very_JJ opening_NN1 of_IO Of_IO Grammatology_NP1 ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, he_PPHS1 sets_VVZ out_RP the_AT thesis_NN1 that_CST writing_NN1 constitutes_VVZ the_AT condition_NN1 of_IO emergence_NN1 for_IF all_DB forms_NN2 of_IO historicity_NN1 as_II such_DA :_: Historicity_NP1 itself_PPX1 is_VBZ tied_VVN to_II the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO writing_NN1 ..._... 
Before_II being_VBG the_AT object_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 history_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 historical_JJ science_NN1 writing_NN1 opens_VVZ the_AT field_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 of_IO historical_JJ becoming_JJ ._. 
'_GE Language_NN1 as_II the_AT origin_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 '_GE :_: on_II what_DDQ basis_NN1 does_VDZ Derrida_NP1 make_VVI the_AT startling_JJ and_CC radical_JJ claim_NN1 that_CST writing_NN1 as_CSA transcendence_NN1 constitutes_VVZ the_AT condition_NN1 of_IO all_DB historicity_NN1 ?_? 
In_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO try_VVI to_TO elucidate_VVI this_DD1 controversial_JJ argument_NN1 ,_, we_PPIS2 can_VM return_VVI to_II the_AT well-known_JJ remark_NN1 in_II the_AT essay_NN1 '_GE Diffrance_NP1 '_GE :_: if_CS the_AT word_NN1 '_GE history_NN1 '_GE did_VDD not_XX carry_VVI with_IW it_PPH1 the_AT theme_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 final_JJ repression_NN1 of_IO difference_NN1 ,_, we_PPIS2 could_VM say_VVI that_CST differences_NN2 alone_RR could_VM be_VBI '_GE historical_JJ ,_, through_RP and_CC through_RP and_CC from_II the_AT start_NN1 ._. 
Here_RL we_PPIS2 revert_VV0 to_II the_AT dialectic_NN1 of_IO the_AT same_DA and_CC the_AT other_JJ :_: as_CSA Derrida_NP1 puts_VVZ it_PPH1 ,_, '_" that_CST the_AT same_DA ..._... is_VBZ never_RR the_AT identical_JJ ,_, means_VVZ first_MD that_DD1 Being_VBG is_VBZ history_NN1 '_GE ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ only_RR through_II difference_NN1 ,_, by_II which_DDQ the_AT same_DA becomes_VVZ other_JJ and_CC produces_VVZ a_AT1 tissue_NN1 of_IO differences_NN2 ,_, that_DD1 history_NN1 could_VM ever_RR take_VVI place_NN1 :_: for_IF if_CS full_JJ presence_NN1 were_VBDR possible_JJ ,_, then_RT there_EX would_VM be_VBI no_AT difference_NN1 ,_, and_CC therefore_RR no_AT time_NNT1 ,_, space_NN1 or_CC history_NN1 ._. 
Diffrance_NN1 means_VVZ precisely_RR that_CST you_PPY can_VM never_RR get_VVI out_II21 of_II22 and_CC therefore_RR have_VH0 no_AT need_NN1 to_TO get_VVI back_RP to_II history_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 also_RR means_VVZ that_CST if_CS difference_NN1 in_II its_APPGE sense_NN1 of_IO non-identity_NN1 sets_VVZ up_RP the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ,_, then_RT difference_NN1 in_II its_APPGE sense_NN1 of_IO delay_NN1 means_VVZ also_RR that_CST it_PPH1 can_VM never_RR be_VBI finally_RR concluded_VVN ,_, for_IF such_DA deferral_NN1 will_VM always_RR inhibit_VVI closure_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ in_II this_DD1 sense_NN1 that_CST Derrida_NP1 argues_VVZ that_CST Husserl_NP1 's_GE Origin_NN1 of_IO Geometry_NN1 sets_VVZ up_RP '_GE the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 as_II the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO language_NN1 '_GE whereby_RRQ '_GE difference_NN1 would_VM be_VBI transcendental_JJ '_" :_: writing_NN1 ,_, in_II the_AT general_JJ significance_NN1 which_DDQ Derrida_NP1 gives_VVZ it_PPH1 of_IO a_AT1 differential_JJ marking_NN1 ,_, must_VM be_VBI the_AT condition_NN1 of_IO any_DD historicity_NN1 ._. 
'_GE History_NN1 as_CSA diffrance_NN1 then_RT means_VVZ that_DD1 history_NN1 will_VM itself_PPX1 always_RR be_VBI subject_II21 to_II22 the_AT operations_NN2 of_IO diffrance_NN1 ,_, and_CC that_DD1 diffrance_NN1 names_VVZ the_AT form_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE historicity_NN1 ._. 
The_AT same_DA conditions_NN2 hold_VV0 for_IF totalization_NN1 ._. 
Derrida_NN1 argues_VVZ that_CST though_CS history_NN1 is_VBZ given_VVN the_AT form_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 totality_NN1 by_II Hegel_NP1 ,_, his_APPGE Aufhebung_NP1 shows_VVZ that_CST in_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO achieve_VVI that_DD1 totality_NN1 it_PPH1 must_VM constantly_RR transcend_VVI itself_PPX1 in_II a_AT1 movement_NN1 of_IO excess_NN1 ._. 
History_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT history_NN1 of_IO the_AT departures_NN2 from_II totality_NN1 ,_, history_NN1 as_II the_AT very_JJ movement_NN1 of_IO transcendence_NN1 ,_, of_IO the_AT excess_NN1 over_II the_AT totality_NN1 without_IW which_DDQ no_AT totality_NN1 would_VM appear_VVI as_II such_DA ._. 
History_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX the_AT totality_NN1 transcended_VVD by_II eschatology_NN1 ,_, metaphysics_NN2 ,_, or_CC speech_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ transcendence_NN1 itself_PPX1 ._. 
History_NN1 ,_, in_II fact_NN1 ,_, works_VVZ by_II exactly_RR the_AT same_DA structure_NN1 of_IO supplementarity_NN1 as_CSA Derrida_NP1 charts_NN2 in_RP Of_IO Grammatology_NN1 ._. 
Here_RL Rousseau_NP1 himself_PPX1 demonstrates_VVZ in_II his_APPGE oscillating_JJ interpretations_NN2 a_AT1 history_NN1 that_CST can_VM not_XX be_VBI linear_JJ ,_, nor_CC operate_VV0 according_II21 to_II22 a_AT1 single_JJ temporality_NN1 ,_, disturbing_VVG instead_RR ,_, the_AT time_NNT1 of_IO the_AT line_NN1 or_CC the_AT line_NN1 of_IO time_NNT1 '_GE :_: We_PPIS2 may_VM perceive_VVI here_RL the_AT strange_JJ workings_NN2 of_IO the_AT historical_JJ process_NN1 according_II21 to_II22 Rousseau_NP1 ._. 
It_PPH1 never_RR varies_VVZ :_: beginning_VVG with_IW an_AT1 origin_NN1 or_CC a_AT1 centre_NN1 that_CST divides_VVZ itself_PPX1 and_CC leaves_VVZ itself_PPX1 ,_, an_AT1 historical_JJ circle_NN1 is_VBZ described_VVN ,_, which_DDQ is_VBZ degenerative_JJ in_II direction_NN1 but_CCB progressive_JJ and_CC compensatory_JJ in_II effect_NN1 ._. 
On_II the_AT circumference_NN1 of_IO that_DD1 circle_NN1 are_VBR new_JJ origins_NN2 for_IF new_JJ circles_NN2 that_CST accelerate_VV0 the_AT degeneration_NN1 by_II annulling_VVG the_AT compensatory_JJ effects_NN2 of_IO the_AT preceding_JJ circle_NN1 ,_, and_CC thereby_RR also_RR making_VVG its_APPGE truth_NN1 and_CC beneficence_NN1 appear_VV0 ._. 
Such_DA a_AT1 history_NN1 can_VM not_XX be_VBI represented_VVN by_II the_AT movement_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 linear_JJ progression_NN1 of_IO unfolding_VVG time_NNT1 ._. 
Its_58 '_GE transcendence_NN1 '_GE marks_NN2 the_AT way_NN1 in_II which_DDQ it_PPH1 can_VM similarly_RR never_RR be_VBI limited_VVN to_II a_AT1 finite_JJ totality_NN1 ,_, nor_CC ,_, conversely_RR ,_, to_II an_AT1 infinity_NN1 :_: ._. 
it_PPH1 exceeds_VVZ itself_PPX1 ._. 
This_DD1 process_NN1 of_IO supplementation_NN1 ,_, this_58 '_GE overabundance_NN1 of_IO the_AT signifier_NN1 '_GE that_RG always_RR goes_VVZ beyond_II itself_PPX1 ,_, is_VBZ the_AT result_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 lack_NN1 ,_, or_CC absence_NN1 at_II the_AT centre_NN1 or_CC origin_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ must_VM always_RR be_VBI supplemented_VVN ._. 
Thus_RR the_AT argument_NN1 that_DD1 '_VBZ history_NN1 '_GE is_VBZ what_DDQ '_VBZ poststructuralism_NN1 '_GE lacks_VVZ ,_, itself_PPX1 repeats_VVZ totalization_NN1 's_GE own_DA structure_NN1 of_IO supplementarity_NN1 according_II21 to_II22 which_DDQ history_NN1 functions_NN2 both_RR as_II an_AT1 excess_NN1 and_CC a_AT1 lack_NN1 in_II the_AT origin_NN1 ._. 
Insofar_CS21 as_CS22 it_PPH1 sets_VVZ up_RP such_DA a_AT1 process_NN1 of_IO necessary_JJ and_CC constant_JJ supplementation_NN1 ,_, we_PPIS2 could_VM say_VVI that_CST the_AT impossibility_NN1 of_IO totalization_NN1 produces_VVZ a_AT1 writing-effect_NN1 whose_DDQGE process_NN1 of_IO perpetual_JJ deferral_NN1 unremittingly_RR provokes_VVZ more_DAR writing_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ thus_RR no_RR21 longer_RR22 a_AT1 question_NN1 of_IO being_VBG able_JK to_TO produce_VVI a_AT1 new_JJ concept_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ ,_, as_CSA Derrida_NP1 puts_VVZ it_PPH1 ,_, '_GE is_VBZ difficult_JJ ,_, if_CS not_XX impossible_JJ ,_, to_TO lift_VVI from_II its_APPGE teleological_JJ or_CC eschatological_JJ horizon_NN1 ._. 
History_NN1 can_VM not_XX be_VBI done_VDN away_RL with_IW any_DD more_DAR than_CSN metaphysics_NN2 :_: but_CCB its_APPGE conditions_NN2 of_IO impossibility_NN1 are_VBR also_RR necessarily_RR its_APPGE conditions_NN2 of_IO possibility_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 means_VVZ ,_, as_CSA Rodolphe_NP1 Gasch_NP1 observes_VVZ ,_, that_DD1 '_VBZ the_AT mimicry_NN1 of_IO totality_NN1 and_CC of_IO the_AT pretension_NN1 to_II systematicity_NN1 is_VBZ an_AT1 inseparable_JJ element_NN1 of_IO deconstruction_NN1 ,_, one_MC1 of_IO the_AT very_JJ conditions_NN2 of_IO finding_VVG its_APPGE foothold_NN1 within_II the_AT logic_NN1 being_VBG deconstructed_JJ '_GE ._. 
Derrida_NN1 himself_PPX1 ,_, therefore_RR ,_, does_VDZ not_XX in_II any_DD sense_NN1 abjure_NN1 history_NN1 (_( or_CC totality_NN1 )_) but_CCB rather_RR attempts_VVZ to_TO reinscribe_VVI it_PPH1 by_II writing_VVG histories_NN2 that_CST set_VVD up_RP supplementary_JJ figures_NN2 whose_DDQGE logic_NN1 simultaneously_RR invokes_VVZ and_CC works_VVZ against_II historical_JJ totalities_NN2 ._. 
From_II this_DD1 perspective_NN1 ,_, even_RR Sartre_NP1 's_GE Critique_NN1 looks_VVZ rather_RG different_JJ from_II the_AT way_NN1 it_PPH1 appeared_VVD in_II the_AT early_JJ sixties_MC2 when_CS read_VVN in_II the_AT context_NN1 of_IO Lukcs_NP2 '_GE History_NN1 and_CC Class_NN1 Consciousness_NN1 ._. 
Today_RT it_PPH1 seems_VVZ to_TO evince_VVI a_AT1 growing_JJ recognition_NN1 that_CST totalization_NN1 can_VM not_XX be_VBI achieved_VVN without_IW a_AT1 movement_NN1 involving_VVG the_AT transcendence_NN1 of_IO itself_PPX1 ._. 
In_II Sartre_NP1 's_GE terms_NN2 ,_, a_AT1 totalization_NN1 needs_VVZ a_AT1 totalizer_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 must_VM always_RR involve_VVI an_AT1 excess_NN1 beyond_II the_AT totality_NN1 without_IW which_DDQ the_AT totality_NN1 could_VM never_RR be_VBI totalized_VVN ,_, which_DDQ must_VM mean_VVI that_CST it_PPH1 can_VM never_RR in_II fact_NN1 be_VBI closed_VVN ._. 
Lyotard_NN1 points_VVZ to_II exactly_RR the_AT same_DA structure_NN1 in_II Marx_NP1 ,_, who_PNQS could_VM likewise_RR never_RR complete_VVI Capital_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 endlessness_NN1 of_IO perpetual_JJ deferral_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 argues_VVZ ,_, is_VBZ later_RRR formalized_VVN in_II '_GE a_AT1 tragic_JJ political_JJ party_NN1 ..._... the_AT negative_JJ dialectic_NN1 of_IO the_AT Aufklrung_NP1 ;_; it_PPH1 is_VBZ the_AT Frankfurt_NP1 School_NN1 ,_, demythologized_VVD ,_, Lutheran_JJ ,_, nihilistic_JJ Marxism_NN1 '_GE ._. 
But_CCB instead_II21 of_II22 the_AT perpetual_JJ threat_NN1 of_IO totalization_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 spectre_NN1 which_DDQ the_AT Frankfurt_NP1 School_NN1 anticipates_VVZ endlessly_RR ,_, Derrida_NP1 suggests_VVZ rather_RR that_CST the_AT problem_NN1 in_II any_DD structure_NN1 is_VBZ rather_RR how_RRQ it_PPH1 achieves_VVZ closure_NN1 ._. 
Even_CS21 if_CS22 this_DD1 appears_VVZ to_TO have_VHI occurred_VVN ,_, a_AT1 deconstructive_JJ account_NN1 will_VM show_VVI how_RRQ such_DA a_AT1 text_NN1 had_VHD to_TO dissimulate_VVI in_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO cover_VVI over_RP its_APPGE own_DA openings_NN2 ,_, or_CC ,_, to_TO put_VVI it_PPH1 the_AT other_JJ way_NN1 round_RP ,_, it_PPH1 will_VM show_VVI how_RRQ history_NN1 must_VM always_RR be_VBI organized_VVN by_II an_AT1 attempted_JJ occlusion_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE own_DA conditions_NN2 of_IO historicity_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 means_VVZ that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX necessary_JJ to_TO reject_VVI totalization_NN1 as_CSA such_DA because_CS such_DA a_AT1 rejection_NN1 assumes_VVZ its_APPGE very_JJ possibility_NN1 ,_, whereas_CS all_DB attempts_NN2 at_II totalization_NN1 such_II21 as_II22 Sartre_NP1 's_GE demonstrate_VV0 rather_RG its_APPGE impossibility_NN1 ._. 
Peter_NP1 Dews_NN2 has_VHZ recently_RR claimed_VVN that_DD1 '_VBZ post-structuralism_NN1 can_VM be_VBI understood_VVN as_II the_AT point_NN1 at_II which_DDQ the_AT '_GE logic_NN1 of_IO disintegration_NN1 '_GE penetrates_VVZ into_II the_AT thought_NN1 which_DDQ attempts_VVZ to_TO comprehend_VVI it_PPH1 ,_, resulting_VVG in_II a_AT1 dispersal_NN1 into_II a_AT1 plurality_NN1 of_IO inconsistent_JJ logics_NN2 '_GE ._. 
So_RR poststructuralism_NN1 is_VBZ itself_PPX1 the_AT '_GE shattered_JJ mirror_NN1 of_IO the_AT logic_NN1 of_IO disintegration_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB poststructuralism_NN1 precisely_RR does_VDZ not_XX try_VVI to_TO comprehend_VVI disintegration_NN1 ,_, for_IF grasping_JJ heterogeneity_NN1 together_RL is_VBZ exactly_RR what_DDQ all_DB totalizing_VVG theories_NN2 have_VH0 unsuccessfully_RR attempted_VVN to_TO do_VDI ._. 
Having_VHG elaborated_VVN the_AT paradoxical_JJ conditions_NN2 of_IO historicity_NN1 ,_, of_IO any_DD history_NN1 or_CC totalization_NN1 ,_, Derrida_NP1 himself_PPX1 has_VHZ been_VBN particularly_RR concerned_JJ to_TO analyse_VVI those_DD2 such_II21 as_II22 Husserl_NP1 ,_, Heidegger_NP1 or_CC Levinas_NP2 ,_, who_PNQS have_VH0 been_VBN involved_JJ in_II investigations_NN2 of_IO time_NNT1 and_CC temporality_NN1 ._. 
Although_CS it_PPH1 would_VM be_VBI possible_JJ to_TO pursue_VVI the_AT question_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 in_II31 terms_II32 of_II33 such_DA analyses_NN2 of_IO the_AT forms_NN2 of_IO historicity_NN1 ,_, such_DA an_AT1 enquiry_NN1 would_VM take_VVI us_PPIO2 on_II a_AT1 very_RG different_JJ path_NN1 from_II that_DD1 prompted_VVD by_II our_APPGE original_JJ question_NN1 ,_, namely_REX if_CS poststructuralism_NN1 can_VM apparently_RR be_VBI faulted_VVN by_II reference_NN1 to_II a_AT1 history_NN1 which_DDQ it_PPH1 neglects_VVZ ,_, where_CS in_II Marxism_NN1 can_VM this_DD1 history_NN1 be_VBI found_VVN ?_? 
Since_CS Sartre_NP1 and_CC Althusser_NP1 there_EX have_VH0 been_VBN a_AT1 number_NN1 of_IO possibilities_NN2 :_: for_IF some_DD ,_, the_AT absolute_JJ historicism_NN1 of_IO the_AT Frankfurt_NP1 School_NN1 has_VHZ become_VVN increasingly_RR attractive_JJ ,_, although_CS in_II its_APPGE current_JJ manifestation_NN1 in_II the_AT work_NN1 of_IO Habermas_NN2 we_PPIS2 might_VM say_VVI that_DD1 history_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN eclipsed_VVN far_RG more_RGR effectively_RR than_CSN by_II any_DD comparable_JJ French_JJ philosopher_NN1 ._. 
If_CS Althusser_NP1 gave_VVD us_PPIO2 history_NN1 without_IW a_AT1 subject_NN1 ,_, Habermas_NP2 gives_VVZ us_PPIO2 subjects_NN2 without_IW history_NN1 ._. 
Otherwise_RR there_EX have_VH0 been_VBN two_MC possibilities_NN2 which_DDQ effectively_RR continue_VV0 the_AT lines_NN2 of_IO descent_NN1 from_II Hegelian_JJ historicism_NN1 and_CC the_AT history_NN1 of_IO science_NN1 ._. 
The_AT most_RGT notable_JJ representative_NN1 of_IO the_AT latter_DA has_VHZ been_VBN Michel_NP1 Foucault_NP1 ,_, who_PNQS has_VHZ remorselessly_RR continued_VVN the_AT critique_NN1 of_IO totalizing_VVG forms_NN2 of_IO history_NN1 and_CC the_AT disavowal_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 general_JJ philosophy_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 in_II31 favour_II32 of_II33 strategic_JJ '_GE genealogical_JJ '_GE analyses_NN2 ._. 
The_AT alternative_NN1 to_II this_DD1 has_VHZ amounted_VVN to_II a_AT1 reaffirmation_NN1 of_IO historicism_NN1 almost_RR as_CS21 if_CS22 nothing_PN1 had_VHD happened_VVN ._. 
This_DD1 has_VHZ been_VBN the_AT course_NN1 of_IO Perry_NP1 Anderson_NP1 ,_, who_PNQS after_II his_APPGE Althusserian_JJ moment_NN1 has_VHZ returned_VVN to_TO espouse_VVI the_AT virtues_NN2 of_IO empirical_JJ historical_JJ studies_NN2 ,_, under_II the_AT general_JJ aegis_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 historicism_NN1 anchored_VVN in_II the_AT recasting_NN1 of_IO orthodox_JJ historical_JJ materialism_NN1 by_II G.A._NP1 Cohen_NP1 ._. 
More_RGR influential_JJ in_II the_AT realm_NN1 of_IO literary_JJ and_CC cultural_JJ theory_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN another_DD1 overt_JJ defence_NN1 of_IO historicism_NN1 that_DD1 of_IO Fredric_NP1 Jameson_NP1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ to_II Foucault_NP1 and_CC to_II Jameson_NP1 that_CST we_PPIS2 now_RT turn_VV0 ._. 
Foucault_NP1 's_GE Phantasms_NN2 It_PPH1 is_VBZ in_II the_AT work_NN1 of_IO Michel_NP1 Foucault_VV0 that_CST we_PPIS2 find_VV0 the_AT most_RGT unrelenting_JJ offensive_NN1 against_II historicist_NN1 theories_NN2 of_IO history_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB Foucault_VV0 at_RR21 least_RR22 can_VM hardly_RR be_VBI accused_VVN of_IO neglecting_VVG history_NN1 as_II such_DA ._. 
The_AT demise_NN1 of_IO Althusserianism_NN1 has_VHZ meant_VVN that_CST the_AT extent_NN1 to_II which_DDQ subsequent_JJ writers_NN2 ,_, such_II21 as_II22 Foucault_NP1 or_CC even_RR Derrida_NP1 ,_, continued_VVD to_TO work_VVI within_II the_AT problematic_JJ that_CST his_APPGE work_NN1 had_VHD established_VVN ,_, has_VHZ tended_VVN to_TO be_VBI overlooked_VVN ._. 
It_PPH1 was_VBDZ Althusser_NP1 who_PNQS ,_, after_CS Sartre_NP1 ,_, problematized_VVD the_AT very_JJ concept_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 and_CC laid_VVD the_AT basis_NN1 for_IF much_DA1 subsequent_JJ theoretical_JJ investigation_NN1 ._. 
In_II the_AT postAlthusserian_JJ context_NN1 of_IO today_RT it_PPH1 is_VBZ nevertheless_RR somewhat_RR startling_VVG to_TO find_VVI the_AT Althusser_NN1 of_IO Reading_NP1 Capital_NN1 citing_VVG his_APPGE debt_NN1 to_II Foucault_NP1 (_( along_II21 with_II22 Bachelard_NP1 ,_, Cavaills_NP2 ,_, and_CC Canguilhem_NP1 )_) as_CSA one_MC1 of_IO our_APPGE masters_NN2 in_II reading_NN1 learned_VVD works'._NNU perhaps_RR even_RR more_RGR unexpected_JJ ,_, in_II41 the_II42 light_II43 of_II44 the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST a_AT1 popular_JJ British_JJ Marxist_JJ position_NN1 on_II Althusser_NP1 is_VBZ that_CST he_PPHS1 simply_RR turned_VVN history_NN1 into_II theory_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ the_AT choice_NN1 of_IO Foucault_NP1 's_GE Madness_NN1 and_CC Civilization_NN1 (_( '_" that_DD1 great_JJ work'_NN1 )_) and_CC The_AT Birth_NN1 of_IO the_AT Clinic_NN1 as_CSA examples_NN2 of_IO the_AT kind_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ,_, focused_VVN on_II the_AT necessity_NN1 of_IO the_AT production_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 concept_NN1 ,_, that_CST he_PPHS1 was_VBDZ advocating_VVG ._. 
In_II certain_JJ respects_NN2 Foucault_VV0 always_RR remained_VVN close_RR to_II the_AT general_JJ positions_NN2 from_II which_DDQ Althusser_NP1 worked_VVD ,_, particularly_RR in_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 the_AT influence_NN1 of_IO Bachelard_NP1 and_CC his_APPGE scepticism_NN1 towards_II progressivist_NN1 and_CC homogeneous_JJ histories_NN2 ._. 
All_DB were_VBDR concerned_JJ to_TO establish_VVI the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO discontinuity_NN1 in_II a_AT1 history_NN1 ,_, as_CSA Althusser_NP1 described_VVD it_PPH1 ,_, no_RR21 longer_RR22 '_GE steeped_JJ in_II the_AT ideology_NN1 of_IO the_AT philosophy_NN1 of_IO the_AT Enlightenment_NN1 ,_, i.e._REX in_II a_AT1 teleological_JJ and_CC therefore_RR idealist_JJ rationalism_NN1 '_GE ._. 
But_CCB whereas_CS Althusser_NP1 followed_VVD Bachelard_NP1 's_GE and_CC Cavaills_NP2 '_GE preoccupation_NN1 with_IW the_AT formal_JJ systems_NN2 of_IO the_AT pure_JJ sciences_NN2 and_CC set_VV0 theory_NN1 ,_, Foucault_VV0 rather_RR pursued_VVD Canguilhem_NP1 's_GE focus_NN1 on_II the_AT medical_JJ and_CC biological_JJ sciences_NN2 ,_, which_DDQ emphasized_VVD their_APPGE cultural_JJ frame_NN1 and_CC the_AT historical_JJ and_CC institutional_JJ (_( both_DB2 discursive_JJ and_CC non-discursive_JJ )_) conditions_NN2 of_IO their_APPGE emergence_NN1 which_DDQ ,_, according_II21 to_II22 Canguilhem_NP1 ,_, '_GE chronicle-history_NN1 '_GE neglected_JJ ._. 
From_II Bachelard_NP1 and_CC Canguilhem_NP1 ,_, Foucault_NP1 derived_VVD his_APPGE emphasis_NN1 on_II the_AT history_NN1 of_IO science_NN1 as_II an_AT1 epistemological_JJ study_NN1 of_IO the_AT formation_NN1 of_IO concepts_NN2 ,_, a_AT1 process_NN1 of_IO separation_NN1 and_CC discrimination_NN1 which_DDQ defines_VVZ both_RR the_AT object_NN1 and_CC the_AT problem_NN1 that_CST is_VBZ being_VBG made_VVN intelligible_JJ ._. 
For_IF Canguilhem_NP1 the_AT history_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 concept_NN1 will_VM have_VHI its_APPGE own_DA specific_JJ temporality_NN1 ,_, demonstrating_VVG less_RRR a_AT1 process_NN1 of_IO epistemological_JJ self-correction_NN1 as_CSA in_II the_AT pure_JJ sciences_NN2 than_CSN the_AT persistence_NN1 of_IO the_AT problem_NN1 within_II all_DB the_AT contradictory_JJ solutions_NN2 and_CC ideological_JJ values_NN2 that_CST have_VH0 been_VBN given_VVN to_II it_PPH1 and_CC which_DDQ make_VV0 up_RP its_APPGE history_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 struggle_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT inevitable_JJ result_NN1 of_IO disciplines_NN2 which_DDQ have_VH0 no_AT claim_NN1 to_II the_AT validation_NN1 procedures_NN2 of_IO the_AT pure_JJ sciences_NN2 and_CC involve_VV0 non-discursive_JJ as_II31 well_II32 as_II33 discursive_JJ practices_NN2 and_CC forms_NN2 of_IO knowledge_NN1 ._. 
Here_RL the_AT history_NN1 of_IO such_DA sciences_NN2 does_VDZ not_XX consist_VVI in_II the_AT gradual_JJ unfolding_NN1 and_CC emergence_NN1 of_IO scientific_JJ truths_NN2 ,_, but_CCB rather_RR of_IO a_AT1 history_NN1 of_IO '_GE veridical_JJ discourses_NN2 '_GE ._. 
Truth_NN1 ,_, like_II historicity_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ derived_VVN from_II particular_JJ discursive_JJ practices_NN2 ;_; it_PPH1 operates_VVZ internally_RR as_II a_AT1 form_NN1 of_IO regulation_NN1 ,_, as_II31 well_II32 as_II33 being_VBG the_AT historical_JJ product_NN1 of_IO the_AT battle_NN1 between_II different_JJ discursive_JJ regimes_NN2 ._. 
Foucault_NP1 's_GE contribution_NN1 was_VBDZ to_TO adapt_VVI this_DD1 type_NN1 of_IO analysis_NN1 from_II the_AT life-sciences_NN2 to_II the_AT human_NN1 and_CC social_JJ sciences_NN2 ._. 
Typically_RR ,_, his_APPGE history_NN1 takes_VVZ the_AT form_NN1 of_IO establishing_VVG a_AT1 concept_NN1 of_IO something_PN1 that_CST chronological_JJ history_NN1 would_VM assume_VVI had_VHD no_AT history_NN1 ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, madness_NN1 ,_, or_CC sexuality_NN1 ._. 
In_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 the_AT almost_RR antithetical_JJ Marxist_JJ positions_NN2 of_IO Sartre_NP1 and_CC Althusser_NP1 ,_, Foucault_NP1 does_VDZ not_XX ,_, however_RR ,_, simply_RR follow_VV0 the_AT latter_DA rather_II21 than_II22 the_AT former_DA :_: he_PPHS1 articulates_VVZ through_II a_AT1 historical_JJ perspective_NN1 the_AT problems_NN2 that_CST their_APPGE work_NN1 encountered_VVN and_CC attempts_NN2 to_TO produce_VVI a_AT1 new_JJ method_NN1 of_IO historical_JJ enquiry_NN1 though_CS not_XX a_AT1 general_JJ theory_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 as_CSA such_CS21 that_CS22 is_VBZ both_RR theoretically_RR coherent_JJ and_CC politically_RR effective_JJ with_II31 respect_II32 to_II33 the_AT particular_JJ problems_NN2 under_II examination_NN1 ._. 
That_DD1 History_NN1 and_CC Marxism_NN1 as_CSA such_DA are_VBR casualties_NN2 of_IO this_DD1 process_NN1 is_VBZ one_MC1 obvious_JJ reason_NN1 why_RRQ attacks_NN2 upon_II Foucault_NP1 have_VH0 been_VBN particularly_RR virulent_JJ ._. 
Foucault_VV0 objects_NN2 to_II historicism_NN1 and_CC Western_JJ humanism_NN1 to_II the_AT extent_NN1 that_CST they_PPHS2 assume_VV0 a_AT1 continuous_JJ development_NN1 ,_, progress_NN1 ,_, and_CC global_JJ totalization_NN1 ._. 
To_II this_DD1 he_PPHS1 adds_VVZ his_APPGE own_DA more_RGR individual_JJ list_NN1 of_IO suspect_JJ conceptual_JJ categories_NN2 :_: the_AT subject_NN1 ,_, class_NN1 ,_, ideology_NN1 ,_, repression_NN1 ,_, the_AT science/non-science_NN1 distinction_NN1 ,_, as_II31 well_II32 as_II33 any_DD general_JJ theory_NN1 of_IO society_NN1 ,_, causality_NN1 ,_, or_CC of_IO history_NN1 itself_PPX1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ interesting_JJ that_CST despite_II this_DD1 some_DD writers_NN2 are_VBR still_RR prepared_VVN nevertheless_RR to_TO claim_VVI Foucault_NN1 as_II a_AT1 Marxist_JJ perhaps_RR less_RRR an_AT1 indication_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE Marxism_NN1 than_CSN of_IO his_APPGE discursive_JJ power_NN1 and_CC the_AT lack_NN1 of_IO alternatives_NN2 within_II Marxism_NN1 today_RT ._. 
Foucault_NN1 emphasizes_VVZ that_CST his_APPGE work_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX lay_VVI claim_NN1 to_II universal_JJ or_CC general_JJ categories_NN2 ,_, nor_CC is_VBZ it_PPH1 even_RR homogeneous_JJ ,_, a_AT1 presupposition_NN1 that_CST ,_, as_CSA he_PPHS1 has_VHZ shown_VVN ,_, has_VHZ less_DAR to_TO do_VDI with_IW the_AT work_NN1 as_CSA such_DA than_CSN the_AT critical_JJ construction_NN1 of_IO its_58 '_GE author_NN1 '_GE ._. 
Nevertheless_RR we_PPIS2 can_VM say_VVI at_RR21 least_RR22 that_CST his_APPGE preoccupation_NN1 with_IW history_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN consistent_JJ throughout_II :_: the_AT articulation_NN1 of_IO repressed_JJ history_NN1 in_II Madness_NN1 and_CC Civilization_NN1 (_( 1961_MC )_) ,_, the_AT historicity_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 in_II The_AT Order_NN1 of_IO Things_NN2 (_( 1966_MC )_) ,_, the_AT epistemic_JJ mutation_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 and_CC the_AT theoretical_JJ difficulties_NN2 of_IO historiography_NN1 in_II The_AT Archaeology_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 (_( 1969_MC )_) ,_, and_CC the_AT attempt_NN1 to_TO write_VVI a_AT1 different_JJ kind_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ,_, '_GE genealogy_NN1 '_GE ,_, that_DD1 demonstrates_VVZ the_AT emergence_NN1 of_IO new_JJ forms_NN2 of_IO power_NN1 in_II Discipline_NN1 and_CC Punish_VV0 (_( 1975_MC )_) and_CC The_AT History_NN1 of_IO Sexuality_NN1 (_( 197684_MC )_) Like_II many_DA2 of_IO those_DD2 discussed_VVN in_II this_DD1 book_NN1 ,_, Foucault_NP1 endorses_VVZ the_AT ethico-political_JJ project_NN1 of_IO establishing_VVG forms_NN2 of_IO knowledge_NN1 that_CST do_VD0 not_XX simply_RR turn_VVI the_AT other_JJ into_II the_AT same_DA :_: as_CSA he_PPHS1 put_VVD it_PPH1 in_II 1968_MC ,_, he_PPHS1 wishes_VVZ to_TO find_VVI another_DD1 politics_NN1 than_CSN that_DD1 which_DDQ '_VBZ since_CS the_AT beginning_NN1 of_IO the_AT nineteenth_MD century_NNT1 ,_, stubbornly_RR persists_VVZ in_II seeing_VVG in_II the_AT immense_JJ domain_NN1 of_IO practice_NN1 only_RR the_AT epiphany_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 triumphant_JJ reason_NN1 ,_, or_CC in_II deciphering_VVG in_II it_PPH1 only_RR the_AT historico-transcendental_JJ destination_NN1 of_IO the_AT West_ND1 '_GE ._. 
This_DD1 focus_NN1 on_II the_AT link_NN1 between_II the_AT structures_NN2 of_IO knowledge_NN1 and_CC of_IO power_NN1 is_VBZ increasingly_RR related_VVN to_II an_AT1 accompanying_JJ analysis_NN1 of_IO the_AT discursive_JJ and_CC technological_JJ mechanisms_NN2 of_IO repression_NN1 and_CC domination_NN1 ._. 
These_DD2 ethico-political_JJ concerns_NN2 formed_VVD the_AT basis_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE early_JJ works_NN on_II madness_NN1 :_: as_CSA he_PPHS1 announced_VVD in_II his_APPGE first_MD book_NN1 ,_, Mental_JJ Illness_NN1 and_CC Psychology_NN1 (_( 1954_MC )_) :_: One_MC1 day_NNT1 an_AT1 attempt_NN1 must_VM be_VBI made_VVN to_TO study_VVI madness_NN1 as_II an_AT1 overall_JJ structure_NN1 madness_NN1 freed_VVN and_CC disalienated_VVN ,_, restored_VVN in_II some_DD sense_NN1 to_II its_APPGE original_JJ language_NN1 ._. 
Madness_NN1 and_CC Civilization_NN1 was_VBDZ such_DA a_AT1 study_NN1 ,_, but_CCB the_AT assumption_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 was_VBDZ possible_JJ simply_RR to_TO lift_VVI the_AT repression_NN1 and_CC to_TO let_VVI otherness_NN1 speak_VVI for_IF itself_PPX1 was_VBDZ questioned_VVN by_II Derrida_NP1 in_II his_APPGE well-known_JJ critique_NN1 ,_, '_GE Cogito_NN1 and_CC the_AT History_NN1 of_IO Madness_NN1 '_GE ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ in_II this_DD1 context_NN1 that_CST we_PPIS2 can_VM see_VVI the_AT importance_NN1 of_IO the_AT so-called_JJ Derrida-Foucault_NP1 debate_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ often_RR misrepresented_VVN ,_, not_XX least_RRT by_II Foucault_NP1 himself_PPX1 ,_, as_CSA a_AT1 confrontation_NN1 between_RL '_GE textuality_NN1 '_GE and_CC '_GE history_NN1 '_GE ._. 
But_CCB Foucault_NP1 's_GE own_DA subsequent_JJ work_NN1 shows_VVZ that_CST it_PPH1 could_VM not_XX really_RR be_VBI a_AT1 question_NN1 of_IO choice_NN1 on_II these_DD2 terms_NN2 ,_, for_IF the_AT simple_JJ reason_NN1 that_CST ,_, as_CSA he_PPHS1 himself_PPX1 is_VBZ at_II pains_NN2 to_TO point_VVI out_RP in_II The_AT Order_NN1 of_IO Things_NN2 ,_, history_NN1 is_VBZ itself_PPX1 a_AT1 discursive_JJ practice_NN1 :_: while_CS the_AT latter_DA can_VM not_XX be_VBI simply_RR equated_VVN with_IW the_AT textual_JJ ,_, it_PPH1 can_VM not_XX be_VBI crudely_RR opposed_VVN to_II it_PPH1 either_RR ._. 
The_AT dispute_NN1 between_II Derrida_NP1 and_CC Foucault_NP1 was_VBDZ less_RRR a_AT1 question_NN1 of_IO text_NN1 versus_II history_NN1 than_CSN an_AT1 argument_NN1 about_II history_NN1 itself_PPX1 ._. 
Derrida_NN1 focuses_VVZ on_II Foucault_NP1 's_GE claim_NN1 that_CST in_II Madness_NN1 and_CC Civilization_NN1 he_PPHS1 is_VBZ writing_VVG a_AT1 history_NN1 of_IO the_AT Other_JJ ._. 
His_APPGE critique_NN1 centres_NN2 on_II two_MC related_JJ problems_NN2 :_: in_II the_AT first_MD place_NN1 if_CS ,_, as_CSA Foucault_NP1 argues_VVZ ,_, the_AT expulsion_NN1 of_IO madness_NN1 by_II reason_NN1 constitutes_VVZ the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 as_II such_DA ,_, so_CS21 that_CS22 this_DD1 gesture_NN1 of_IO exclusion_NN1 produces_VVZ the_AT fundamental_JJ structure_NN1 of_IO historicity_NN1 ,_, then_RT the_AT '_GE classical_JJ '_GE moment_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 proscription_NN1 that_CST he_PPHS1 describes_VVZ must_VM be_VBI an_AT1 example_NN1 rather_II21 than_II22 an_AT1 originary_JJ moment_NN1 ._. 
In_II the_AT second_MD place_NN1 ,_, if_CS reason_NN1 is_VBZ defined_VVN by_II its_APPGE elimination_NN1 of_IO madness_NN1 ,_, and_CC if_CS history_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 rational_JJ concept_NN1 ,_, the_AT question_NN1 then_RT follows_VVZ ,_, how_RRQ can_VM you_PPY write_VVI a_AT1 history_NN1 of_IO madness_NN1 ?_? 
Derrida_NN1 comments_NN2 :_: '_" It_PPH1 is_VBZ the_AT meaning_NN1 of_IO '_" '_GE history_NN1 '_GE or_CC archia_NN1 that_CST should_VM have_VHI been_VBN questioned_VVN first_MD ,_, perhaps_58 '_GE ._. 
Implicitly_RR he_PPHS1 is_VBZ criticizing_VVG Foucault_NP1 's_GE understanding_NN1 of_IO the_AT relation_NN1 of_IO the_AT same_DA to_II the_AT other_NN1 which_DDQ posits_VVZ madness_NN1 as_CSA outside_II the_AT sphere_NN1 of_IO reason_NN1 ._. 
To_TO regard_VVI the_AT latter_DA as_II systematically_RR oppressing_VVG madness_NN1 and_CC forcing_VVG it_PPH1 to_II the_AT margins_NN2 to_II literature_NN1 ,_, or_CC the_AT hospital_NN1 is_VBZ simply_RR to_TO repeat_VVI ,_, in_II reverse_NN1 ,_, the_AT very_JJ structure_NN1 that_CST is_VBZ being_VBG criticized_VVN ._. 
Derrida_NN1 contends_VVZ that_CST if_CS madness_NN1 is_VBZ constituted_VVN as_CSA madness_NN1 ,_, as_CSA other_JJ ,_, by_II reason_NN1 ,_, then_RT this_DD1 means_VVZ that_DD1 reason_NN1 is_VBZ itself_PPX1 defined_VVN through_II it_PPH1 and_CC therefore_RR already_RR contains_VVZ and_CC depends_VVZ upon_II it_PPH1 ._. 
Madness_NN1 can_VM not_XX be_VBI considered_VVN to_TO exist_VVI outside_II the_AT historical_JJ conditions_NN2 of_IO its_APPGE production_NN1 and_CC could_VM never_RR therefore_RR be_VBI '_GE restored_JJ ..._... to_II its_APPGE original_JJ language_NN1 '_GE as_CSA Foucault_NP1 hopes_VVZ ._. 
The_AT problem_NN1 for_IF Foucault_NN1 is_VBZ that_CST this_DD1 argument_NN1 involves_VVZ more_DAR than_CSN just_JJ madness_NN1 as_II such_DA ,_, for_IF it_PPH1 really_RR amounts_VVZ to_II a_AT1 questioning_NN1 of_IO the_AT very_JJ possibility_NN1 of_IO critique_NN1 ._. 
In_II his_APPGE early_JJ work_NN1 we_PPIS2 can_VM see_VVI that_CST Foucault_NP1 's_GE position_NN1 involves_VVZ a_AT1 remarkable_JJ development_NN1 of_IO Althusser_NP1 's_GE hints_NN2 that_CST art_NN1 can_VM function_VVI as_II a_AT1 privileged_JJ category_NN1 that_CST provides_VVZ an_AT1 '_GE internal_JJ distance_NN1 '_GE from_II ideology_NN1 by_II relating_VVG histories_NN2 ,_, writing_VVG reports_NN2 ._. 
Something_PN1 of_IO the_AT same_DA special_JJ place_NN1 of_IO '_GE retreat_NN1 '_GE for_IF art_NN1 ,_, especially_RR literature_NN1 and_CC painting_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ to_TO be_VBI found_VVN in_II Foucault_NP1 ._. 
David_NP1 Carroll_NP1 has_VHZ recently_RR emphasized_VVN the_AT significance_NN1 of_IO ,_, a_AT1 transgressive_JJ aesthetics_NN1 or_CC poetics_NN2 of_IO self-reflexivity'_NN1 in_II his_APPGE work_NN1 ._. 
Such_DA self-reflexivity_NN1 ,_, far_RR from_II involving_VVG a_AT1 turning_NN1 inwards_RL as_CSA is_VBZ so_RG often_RR generally_RR supposed_VVN ,_, comprises_VVZ rather_RG an_AT1 edge_NN1 or_CC void_NN1 from_II which_DDQ a_AT1 critical_JJ perspective_NN1 can_VM be_VBI opened_VVN up_RP :_: a_AT1 '_GE thinking_NN1 of_IO the_AT outside_NN1 '_GE ._. 
So_RR madness_NN1 ,_, or_CC certain_JJ radical_JJ forms_NN2 of_IO writing_NN1 ,_, such_II21 as_II22 that_DD1 of_IO Sade_NP1 ,_, Bataille_NP1 ,_, Blanchot_NP1 or_CC Roussel_NP1 ,_, by_II transgressing_VVG the_AT limits_NN2 of_IO order_NN1 and_CC turning_VVG back_RP to_TO reflect_VVI upon_II it_PPH1 ,_, enable_VV0 a_AT1 space_NN1 from_II which_DDQ a_AT1 critique_NN1 can_VM be_VBI made_VVN ._. 
This_DD1 self-reflexivity_NN1 operates_VVZ at_II the_AT limit_NN1 of_IO reason_NN1 or_CC history_NN1 ,_, eluding_VVG even_RR the_AT structure_NN1 of_IO the_AT epistemes_NN2 ._. 
In_II this_DD1 schema_NN1 ,_, Foucault_NP1 is_VBZ therefore_RR proposing_VVG a_AT1 fundamental_JJ ,_, enabling_VVG separation_NN1 between_II writing_NN1 and_CC history_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB after_CS Derrida_NP1 's_GE essay_NN1 ,_, Foucault_NP1 abandoned_VVD his_APPGE claims_NN2 that_CST certain_JJ forms_NN2 of_IO literature_NN1 could_VM effect_VVI such_DA a_AT1 critical_JJ ,_, reflective_JJ detachment_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 led_VVD to_II two_MC problems_NN2 :_: is_VBZ there_EX then_RT any_DD space_NN1 from_II which_DDQ a_AT1 critique_NN1 can_VM be_VBI established_VVN ?_? and_CC how_RRQ does_VDZ Foucault_NP1 reformulate_VVI the_AT relation_NN1 of_IO writing_VVG to_II history_NN1 ?_? 
In_II his_APPGE subsequent_JJ work_NN1 ,_, the_AT connection_NN1 between_II the_AT two_MC would_VM remain_VVI profoundly_RR equivocal_JJ ._. 
The_AT seriousness_NN1 of_IO Derrida_NP1 's_GE intervention_NN1 can_VM be_VBI discerned_VVN from_II Foucault_NP1 's_GE subsequent_JJ repudiation_NN1 of_IO the_AT central_JJ thesis_NN1 of_IO Madness_NN1 and_CC Civilization_NN1 and_CC the_AT change_NN1 of_IO direction_NN1 that_CST his_APPGE work_NN1 took_VVD thereafter_RT ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ apparent_JJ from_II his_APPGE rethinking_NN1 of_IO the_AT '_GE age-old_JJ distinction_NN1 between_II the_AT Same_DA and_CC the_AT Other_NN1 '_GE ._. 
While_CS he_PPHS1 retained_VVD his_APPGE criticisms_NN2 of_IO rationality_NN1 ,_, Foucault_NP1 substituted_VVD the_AT idea_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 otherness_NN1 at_II work_NN1 within_II reason_NN1 for_IF that_DD1 of_IO a_AT1 repressed_JJ alterity_NN1 existing_VVG outside_RL or_CC beyond_II it_PPH1 ._. 
If_CS madness_NN1 or_CC the_AT other_NN1 is_VBZ always_RR inside_RL ,_, then_RT this_DD1 means_VVZ that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ always_RR already_RR a_AT1 part_NN1 of_IO reason_NN1 or_CC the_AT same_DA ;_; but_CCB it_PPH1 will_VM also_RR be_VBI exactly_RR the_AT element_NN1 that_CST reason_NN1 is_VBZ unable_JK to_TO comprehend_VVI ,_, and_CC will_VM therefore_RR work_VVI disruptively_RR ._. 
This_DD1 reformulation_NN1 shows_VVZ why_RRQ it_PPH1 was_VBDZ necessary_JJ for_IF Foucault_NN1 to_TO free_VVI himself_PPX1 from_II what_DDQ he_PPHS1 later_RRR termed_VVN '_GE the_AT repressive_JJ hypothesis_NN1 '_GE of_IO liberation_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 also_RR provides_VVZ the_AT context_NN1 in_II which_DDQ to_TO consider_VVI both_DB2 the_AT claim_NN1 that_CST for_IF the_AT later_JJR Foucault_NN1 knowledge_NN1 is_VBZ absolutely_RR determined_VVN ,_, leaving_VVG him_PPHO1 in_II the_AT impossible_JJ situation_NN1 of_IO requiring_VVG something_PN1 outside_II this_DD1 for_IF any_DD prospect_NN1 of_IO critique_NN1 ,_, as_II31 well_II32 as_II33 the_AT question_NN1 of_IO exactly_RR how_RRQ power_NN1 and_CC resistance_NN1 are_VBR interdependent_JJ and_CC to_II what_DDQ extent_NN1 they_PPHS2 are_VBR separable_JJ ._. 
Any_DD answer_NN1 to_II these_DD2 problems_NN2 must_VM take_VVI Foucault_NP1 's_GE own_DA resituating_NN1 of_IO the_AT dialectic_NN1 of_IO the_AT same_DA and_CC the_AT other_JJ into_II account_NN1 ._. 
Even_RR21 so_RR22 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX at_RR21 all_RR22 obvious_JJ how_RRQ he_PPHS1 relocates_VVZ writing_VVG in_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 the_AT history_NN1 to_II which_DDQ it_PPH1 had_VHD until_II then_RT been_VBN opposed_VVN ._. 
If_CS it_PPH1 had_VHD previously_RR operated_VVN critically_RR outside_JJ history_NN1 's_GE limits_NN2 ,_, offering_VVG the_AT only_JJ available_JJ possibility_NN1 of_IO critical_JJ distance_NN1 ,_, how_RRQ might_VM writing_NN1 work_NN1 transgressively_RR within_II it_PPH1 ?_? 
II_MC DIFFERENTIATED_VVD HISTORIES_NN2 In_II The_AT Order_NN1 of_IO Things_NN2 ,_, published_VVD three_MC years_NNT2 after_II Derrida_NP1 's_GE critique_NN1 ,_, Foucault_NP1 re-examines_VVZ the_AT links_NN2 between_II Enlightenment_NN1 rationality_NN1 and_CC history_NN1 and_CC poses_VVZ the_AT questions_NN2 about_II the_AT latter_DA which_DDQ Derrida_NP1 had_VHD suggested_VVN that_CST Foucault_NP1 's_GE work_NN1 invites_VVZ ._. 
In_II the_AT Preface_NN1 he_PPHS1 resituated_VVD his_APPGE earlier_JJR formulations_NN2 as_CSA follows_VVZ :_: The_AT history_NN1 of_IO madness_NN1 would_VM be_VBI the_AT history_NN1 of_IO the_AT Other_NN1 of_IO that_DD1 which_DDQ ,_, for_IF a_AT1 given_JJ culture_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ at_RR21 once_RR22 interior_JJ and_CC foreign_JJ ,_, therefore_RR to_TO be_VBI excluded_VVN (_( so_BCL21 as_BCL22 to_TO exorcise_VVI the_AT interior_JJ danger_NN1 )_) but_CCB by_II being_VBG shut_VVN away_RL (_( in_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO reduce_VVI its_APPGE otherness_NN1 )_) ;_; whereas_CS the_AT history_NN1 of_IO the_AT order_NN1 imposed_VVN on_II things_NN2 would_VM be_VBI the_AT history_NN1 of_IO the_AT Same_DA of_IO that_DD1 which_DDQ ,_, for_IF a_AT1 given_JJ culture_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ both_RR dispersed_VVN and_CC related_VVN ,_, therefore_RR to_TO be_VBI distinguished_VVN by_II kinds_NN2 and_CC to_TO be_VBI collected_VVN together_RL into_II identities._NNU (_( xxiv_MC )_) Foucault_VV0 thus_RR modifies_VVZ his_APPGE argument_NN1 that_CST reason_VV0 simply_RR excluded_VVN madness_NN1 and_CC initiated_VVN the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 by_II suggesting_VVG instead_RR that_CST the_AT histories_NN2 of_IO the_AT Other_JJ and_CC of_IO the_AT Same_DA are_VBR necessarily_RR implicated_VVN within_II each_PPX221 other_PPX222 ._. 
But_CCB at_II the_AT same_DA time_NNT1 he_PPHS1 refuses_VVZ Derrida_NP1 's_GE equation_NN1 of_IO historicity_NN1 with_IW difference_NN1 as_II such_DA ,_, instead_RR reformulating_VVG his_APPGE former_DA thesis_NN1 so_CS21 that_CS22 now_RT history_NN1 itself_PPX1 takes_VVZ part_NN1 in_II the_AT epistemic_JJ shifts_NN2 that_CST he_PPHS1 traces_VVZ ._. 
Initially_RR Foucault_NP1 argues_VVZ that_CST the_AT stasis_NN1 of_IO what_DDQ he_PPHS1 calls_VVZ the_AT '_GE Classical_JJ Order_NN1 '_GE gave_VVD way_NN1 to_II '_GE History_NN1 '_GE which_DDQ took_VVD over_RP both_RR as_CSA the_AT form_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 and_CC as_II the_AT fundamental_JJ mode_NN1 of_IO being_VBG for_IF empirical_JJ phenomena_NN2 ._. 
By_II the_AT end_NN1 of_IO The_AT Order_NN1 of_IO Things_NN2 ,_, however_RR ,_, he_PPHS1 revises_VVZ this_DD1 somewhat_RR conventional_JJ thesis_NN1 to_TO suggest_VVI that_DD1 what_DDQ was_VBDZ involved_VVN was_VBDZ not_XX so_RG much_RR a_AT1 move_NN1 from_II a_AT1 static_JJ to_II a_AT1 historical_JJ view_NN1 of_IO things_NN2 as_II the_AT break-up_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 common_JJ ,_, unified_VVD historical_JJ time-scheme_NN1 in_II which_DDQ every_AT1 phenomenon_NN1 had_VHD had_VHN its_APPGE place_NN1 in_II the_AT same_DA space_NN1 and_CC chronology_NN1 ._. 
In_II31 place_II32 of_II33 a_AT1 unity_NN1 of_IO time_NNT1 came_VVD the_AT notion_NN1 of_IO discrete_JJ temporalities_NN2 ,_, with_IW a_AT1 recognition_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 historicity_NN1 proper_JJ to_II each_DD1 discipline_NN1 or_CC area_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 ._. 
Instead_II21 of_II22 a_AT1 great_JJ historical_JJ narrative_JJ common_JJ to_II ill_JJ ,_, everything_PN1 now_RT had_VHD its_APPGE own_DA chronology_NN1 and_CC its_APPGE own_DA history_NN1 ._. 
The_AT effect_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 was_VBDZ to_TO dehistoricize_VVI man_NN1 himself_PPX1 ._. 
Whereas_CS formerly_RR he_PPHS1 had_VHD been_VBN the_AT subject_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ,_, taking_VVG pride_NN1 of_IO place_NN1 in_II God_NP1 's_GE historical_JJ scheme_NN1 from_II creation_NN1 onwards_RL ,_, now_RT '_GE the_AT human_JJ being_NN1 no_RR21 longer_RR22 has_VHZ any_DD history_NN1 :_: or_CC rather_RR ,_, since_CS he_PPHS1 speaks_VVZ ,_, works_NN ,_, and_CC lives_NN2 ,_, he_PPHS1 finds_VVZ himself_PPX1 interwoven_VVN in_II his_APPGE own_DA being_NN1 with_IW histories_NN2 that_CST are_VBR neither_RR subordinate_JJ to_II him_PPHO1 nor_CC homogeneous_JJ with_IW him_PPHO1 '_GE (_( 368_MC 9_MC )_) ._. 
Man_NN1 was_VBDZ no_RR21 longer_RR22 the_AT measure_NN1 of_IO all_DB things_NN2 ._. 
Two_MC possibilities_NN2 were_VBDR developed_VVN to_TO deal_VVI with_IW man_NN1 's_GE new_JJ homelessness_NN1 in_II the_AT world_NN1 ,_, his_APPGE exposure_NN1 ,_, as_CSA Foucault_NP1 puts_VVZ it_PPH1 ,_, to_II the_AT finitude_NN1 of_IO the_AT event_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ attempted_VVD to_TO draw_VVI all_DB these_DD2 heterogeneous_JJ histories_NN2 together_RL again_RT :_: either_RR men_NN2 sought_VVN for_IF some_DD fundamental_JJ law_NN1 through_II which_DDQ a_AT1 new_JJ general_JJ history_NN1 could_VM be_VBI constituted_VVN ,_, or_CC historicity_NN1 as_CSA such_DA was_VBDZ defined_VVN in_II31 terms_II32 of_II33 '_GE man_NN1 '_GE whether_CSW as_II progress_NN1 ,_, economic_JJ laws_NN2 ,_, or_CC cultural_JJ totalities_NN2 ._. 
The_AT creation_NN1 of_IO man_NN1 as_CSA centre_NN1 was_VBDZ effected_VVN by_II defining_VVG him_PPHO1 against_II other_JJ ,_, now_RT marginalized_VVD groups_NN2 ,_, such_II21 as_II22 women_NN2 ,_, the_AT mad_JJ ,_, or_CC ,_, we_PPIS2 would_VM add_VVI ,_, the_AT allegedly_RR sub-human_NN1 '_GE native_NN1 '_GE ._. 
This_DD1 move_NN1 formed_VVD the_AT basis_NN1 for_IF the_AT human_JJ sciences_NN2 which_DDQ ,_, through_II their_APPGE organization_NN1 around_II the_AT figure_NN1 of_IO man_NN1 ,_, once_RR21 more_RR22 brought_VVN about_RP a_AT1 unity_NN1 to_II History_NN1 ._. 
We_PPIS2 shall_VM examine_VVI the_AT relation_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 new_JJ humanism_NN1 to_II the_AT history_NN1 of_IO Western_JJ colonialism_NN1 in_II a_AT1 later_JJR chapter_NN1 :_: it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 question_NN1 that_CST Foucault_VV0 himself_PPX1 elaborates_VVZ in_II the_AT course_NN1 of_IO what_DDQ is_VBZ claimed_VVN to_TO be_VBI an_AT1 ,_, ethnology_NN1 of_IO Western_JJ culture'_NN1 ._. 
Rather_RR he_PPHS1 points_VVZ to_II the_AT theoretical_JJ paradox_NN1 involved_VVD ,_, namely_REX that_CST the_AT human_JJ sciences_NN2 '_GE very_JJ emphasis_NN1 on_II historicity_NN1 as_II a_AT1 mode_NN1 of_IO being_NN1 was_VBDZ equally_RR applicable_JJ to_II themselves_PPX2 as_CSA forms_NN2 of_IO knowledge_NN1 ,_, and_CC inevitably_RR destroyed_VVN any_DD attempt_NN1 to_TO formulate_VVI universal_JJ laws_NN2 comparable_JJ to_II those_DD2 of_IO the_AT natural_JJ sciences_NN2 ._. 
Here_RL we_PPIS2 can_VM see_VVI a_AT1 rather_RG different_JJ perspective_NN1 on_II the_AT human_JJ alienation_NN1 which_DDQ Lukcs_NN2 describes_VVZ ;_; in_II Foucault_NP1 's_GE account_NN1 ,_, Marxism_NN1 's_GE attempt_NN1 to_TO reproduce_VVI the_AT totality_NN1 in_II itself_PPX1 falls_VVZ within_II the_AT terms_NN2 of_IO his_APPGE argument_NN1 by_II which_DDQ totalizing_JJ theories_NN2 of_IO history_NN1 are_VBR based_VVN on_II an_AT1 anxiety_NN1 derived_VVN from_II the_AT break-up_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE unity_NN1 ._. 
Marxism_NN1 's_GE claim_NN1 to_II the_AT status_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 science_NN1 proper_JJ thus_RR functions_VVZ as_II a_AT1 device_NN1 to_TO avoid_VVI the_AT historicity_NN1 through_II which_DDQ it_PPH1 accounts_VVZ for_IF other_JJ phenomena_NN2 ._. 
The_AT Order_NN1 of_IO Things_NN2 by_II contrast_NN1 points_VVZ to_II the_AT emergence_NN1 of_IO historicity_NN1 as_II a_AT1 mode_NN1 of_IO understanding_NN1 ,_, and_CC argues_VVZ that_DD1 '_VBZ History_NN1 '_GE ,_, both_RR as_II a_AT1 form_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 and_CC as_II the_AT primary_JJ state_NN1 of_IO being_VBG of_IO empirical_JJ phenomena_NN2 broadly_RR speaking_VVG ,_, the_AT assumption_NN1 of_IO all_DB Marxisms_NN2 is_VBZ itself_PPX1 a_AT1 historical_JJ phenomenon_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 means_VVZ that_DD1 history_NN1 can_VM not_XX provide_VVI an_AT1 unquestionable_JJ ground_NN1 for_IF knowledge_NN1 ,_, and_CC that_DD1 historicity_NN1 can_VM not_XX claim_VVI an_AT1 a_JJ21 priori_JJ22 privilege_NN1 as_II the_AT fundamental_JJ mode_NN1 of_IO being_VBG either_RR ._. 
As_II the_AT two_MC '_GE counter-sciences_NN2 '_GE ethnology_NN1 and_CC psychoanalysis_NN1 have_VH0 suggested_VVN ,_, history_NN1 is_VBZ simply_RR one_MC1 possible_JJ discursive_JJ form_NN1 of_IO understanding_NN1 even_CS21 if_CS22 its_APPGE problematic_JJ of_IO temporality_NN1 spills_VVZ over_RP into_II many_DA2 others_NN2 ._. 
In_II making_VVG this_DD1 argument_NN1 ,_, however_RR ,_, Foucault_NP1 is_VBZ not_XX concerned_JJ to_TO dispense_VVI with_IW history_NN1 rather_RR to_TO make_VVI history_NN1 itself_PPX1 an_AT1 object_NN1 of_IO historical_JJ investigation_NN1 and_CC to_TO question_VVI its_APPGE presuppositions_NN2 ._. 
In_RR21 particular_RR22 ,_, he_PPHS1 challenges_VVZ Hegel_NP1 's_GE equation_NN1 in_II the_AT Phenomenology_NN1 of_IO the_AT evolution_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 with_IW the_AT developing_JJ consciousness_NN1 of_IO man_NN1 himself_PPX1 ._. 
Although_CS this_DD1 has_VHZ been_VBN particularly_RR influential_JJ for_IF many_DA2 forms_NN2 of_IO Western_JJ Marxism_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 also_RR represents_VVZ a_AT1 deviation_NN1 from_II Marx_NP1 's_GE original_JJ claim_NN1 that_CST history_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT effect_NN1 of_IO material_NN1 conditions_NN2 rather_II21 than_II22 of_IO human_JJ consciousness_NN1 ._. 
In_II this_DD1 way_NN1 Foucault_NN1 could_VM be_VBI said_VVN to_TO be_VBI returning_VVG to_II Marx_NP1 in_II removing_VVG the_AT subject_NN1 from_II the_AT centre_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ,_, were_VBDR it_PPH1 not_XX for_IF the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST he_PPHS1 dispenses_VVZ with_IW the_AT consolations_NN2 of_IO Marx_NP1 's_GE historicism_NN1 also_RR ._. 
In_II this_DD1 situation_NN1 he_PPHS1 asks_VVZ ,_, how_RRQ do_VD0 we_PPIS2 come_VVI to_II terms_NN2 with_IW the_AT event_NN1 ,_, with_IW continuities_NN2 and_CC discontinuities_NN2 ,_, in_RR21 short_RR22 with_IW history_NN1 as_CSA difference_NN1 and_CC not_XX just_RR the_AT story_NN1 of_IO sameness_NN1 ?_? 
Foucault_NN1 adopts_VVZ a_AT1 strategy_NN1 ,_, obviously_RR indebted_JJ to_II Bachelard_NP1 ,_, designed_VVN to_TO restore_VVI the_AT otherness_NN1 that_CST History_NN1 by_II definition_NN1 must_VM disallow_VVI :_: he_PPHS1 produces_VVZ an_AT1 account_NN1 of_IO epistemic_JJ shifts_NN2 ,_, with_IW prior_JJ epistemes_NN2 presented_VVD as_RG altogether_RR estranged_JJ from_II the_AT present_NN1 ._. 
In_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO come_VVI to_II terms_NN2 with_IW the_AT past_NN1 ,_, the_AT initial_JJ gesture_NN1 must_VM be_VBI to_TO confront_VVI its_APPGE strangeness_NN1 ,_, rather_CS21 than_CS22 to_TO seek_VVI for_IF similarities_NN2 and_CC continuities_NN2 so_CS21 that_CS22 it_PPH1 can_VM be_VBI equated_VVN with_IW the_AT present_NN1 and_CC thus_RR ,_, in_II effect_NN1 ,_, dehistoricized_VVD ._. 
Following_VVG Althusser_NP1 's_GE suggestion_NN1 that_CST a_AT1 historical_JJ problematic_JJ might_VM be_VBI altogether_RR invisible_JJ even_RR to_II experiencing_VVG subjects_NN2 ,_, in_II The_AT Order_NN1 of_IO Things_NN2 Foucault_VV0 analyses_NN2 what_DDQ he_PPHS1 provocatively_RR calls_NN2 '_GE the_AT historical_JJ a_JJ21 priori_JJ22 '_GE according_II21 to_II22 which_DDQ the_AT knowledges_NN2 of_IO grammar_NN1 ,_, natural_JJ history_NN1 and_CC wealth_NN1 ,_, and_CC their_APPGE epistemic_JJ replacements_NN2 ,_, philology_NN1 ,_, biology_NN1 ,_, and_CC political_JJ economy_NN1 ,_, were_VBDR structured_VVN ._. 
But_CCB as_CSA with_IW Althusser_NP1 's_GE modes_NN2 of_IO production_NN1 ,_, so_CS Foucault_NP1 's_GE attempt_NN1 to_TO elaborate_VVI a_AT1 '_GE positive_JJ unconscious_NN1@ '_GE of_IO knowledge_NN1 was_VBDZ criticized_VVN by_II Sartre_NP1 ,_, and_CC subsequently_RR by_II many_DA2 others_NN2 ,_, for_IF being_VBG unable_JK to_TO give_VVI any_DD account_NN1 of_IO change_NN1 and_CC for_IF implying_VVG a_AT1 total_JJ discontinuity_NN1 between_II periods_NN2 ._. 
The_AT objection_NN1 that_CST Foucault_NP1 neglects_VVZ history_NN1 because_CS he_PPHS1 does_VDZ not_XX attempt_VVI to_TO give_VVI reasons_NN2 why_RRQ the_AT epistemic_JJ shifts_NN2 he_PPHS1 describes_VVZ occurred_VVN is_VBZ perhaps_RR inevitable_JJ but_CCB also_RR begs_VVZ the_AT question_NN1 :_: for_IF conventional_JJ historiography_NN1 has_VHZ in_RR21 general_RR22 done_VDN nothing_PN1 but_CS account_VVI for_IF such_DA shifts_NN2 which_DDQ has_VHZ meant_VVN that_CST it_PPH1 has_VHZ consistently_RR failed_VVN to_TO recognize_VVI alterity_NN1 and_CC incommensurability_NN1 in_II its_APPGE insistent_JJ search_NN1 for_IF continuities_NN2 with_IW the_AT past_NN1 ._. 
Without_IW history_NN1 as_II a_AT1 form_NN1 of_IO mediation_NN1 the_AT differences_NN2 return_VV0 as_II the_AT problem_NN1 ,_, and_CC it_PPH1 was_VBDZ this_DD1 which_DDQ ,_, according_II21 to_II22 Foucault_NP1 ,_, The_AT Order_NN1 of_IO Things_NN2 was_VBDZ really_RR trying_VVG to_TO address_VVI ._. 
Here_RL we_PPIS2 might_VM recall_VVI Derrida_NP1 's_GE criticism_NN1 of_IO Levinas_NP2 's_GE history_NN1 '_GE as_II a_AT1 blinding_JJ to_II the_AT other_JJ ,_, and_CC as_II the_AT laborious_JJ procession_NN1 of_IO the_AT same_DA '_GE ._. 
In_II the_AT face_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 history_NN1 which_DDQ obscures_VVZ such_DA discontinuities_NN2 ,_, the_AT first_MD stage_NN1 for_IF Foucault_NP1 ,_, therefore_RR ,_, is_VBZ to_TO defamiliarize_VVI it_PPH1 by_II reconstituting_VVG it_PPH1 without_IW the_AT mythology_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 continuous_JJ History_NN1 which_DDQ has_VHZ turned_VVN difference_NN1 into_II identity_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ often_RR assumed_VVN that_CST Foucault_NP1 is_VBZ simply_RR the_AT philosopher_NN1 of_IO discontinuity_NN1 ,_, merely_RR substituting_VVG it_PPH1 where_CS previously_RR there_EX had_VHD been_VBN continuity_NN1 ;_; but_CCB the_AT discontinuous_JJ is_VBZ emphasized_VVN only_RR because_CS so_RG much_DA1 stress_NN1 is_VBZ normally_RR placed_VVN on_II the_AT continuous_JJ ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX just_RR a_AT1 question_NN1 of_IO exchanging_VVG one_PN1 for_IF the_AT other_JJ ._. 
This_DD1 has_VHZ a_AT1 methodological_JJ implication_NN1 as_RR21 well_RR22 :_: all_RR too_RG often_RR it_PPH1 is_VBZ assumed_VVN that_CST Foucault_NP1 's_GE stress_NN1 on_II disruption_NN1 can_VM be_VBI taken_VVN as_CSA equivalent_JJ to_II randomness_NN1 ,_, as_CSA we_PPIS2 have_VH0 seen_VVN with_IW Perry_NP1 Anderson_NP1 ._. 
However_RR ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ more_RGR helpful_JJ to_TO consider_VVI it_PPH1 in_II the_AT context_NN1 of_IO Canguilhem_NP1 ,_, who_PNQS emphasized_VVD that_CST the_AT life_NN1 sciences_NN2 ,_, like_II the_AT natural_JJ sciences_NN2 ,_, require_VV0 their_APPGE own_DA specific_JJ mode_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ;_; they_PPHS2 show_VV0 that_CST historical_JJ method_NN1 itself_PPX1 must_VM be_VBI heterogeneous_JJ ,_, in_II the_AT sense_NN1 that_CST there_EX is_VBZ no_AT single_JJ method_NN1 applicable_JJ to_II the_AT whole_JJ range_NN1 of_IO different_JJ histories_NN2 ._. 
Even_RR the_AT history_NN1 of_IO discontinuities_NN2 is_VBZ itself_PPX1 impermanent_JJ and_CC discontinuous_JJ ._. 
If_CS certain_JJ forms_NN2 of_IO history_NN1 stress_NN1 continuity_NN1 ,_, try_VV0 to_TO account_VVI for_IF change_NN1 ,_, the_AT history_NN1 of_IO science_NN1 by_II contrast_NN1 must_VM be_VBI disjointed_JJ ,_, for_IF it_PPH1 is_VBZ made_VVN up_RP of_IO a_AT1 series_NN of_IO corrections_NN2 in_II which_DDQ the_AT errors_NN2 of_IO the_AT past_NN1 have_VH0 to_TO be_VBI simply_RR discarded_VVN ._. 
Foucault_VV0 ,_, as_CSA we_PPIS2 have_VH0 seen_VVN ,_, is_VBZ also_RR criticized_VVN on_II the_AT grounds_NN2 that_CST he_PPHS1 can_VM not_XX give_VVI a_AT1 cause_NN1 for_IF the_AT shifts_NN2 he_PPHS1 describes_VVZ ,_, but_CCB this_DD1 criticism_NN1 itself_PPX1 begs_VVZ the_AT question_NN1 insofar_CS21 as_CS22 it_PPH1 assumes_VVZ a_AT1 certain_JJ kind_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ itself_PPX1 presupposes_VVZ that_CST there_EX was_VBDZ a_AT1 cause_NN1 in_II the_AT sense_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 single_JJ uniform_JJ causality_NN1 ,_, rather_II21 than_II22 a_AT1 disconnectedness_NN1 in_II the_AT scientific_JJ mode_NN1 ._. 
In_II the_AT context_NN1 of_IO conventional_JJ historiography_NN1 ,_, Foucault_NP1 argues_VVZ that_CST the_AT point_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO analyse_VVI the_AT different_JJ kinds_NN2 of_IO transformation_NN1 ,_, the_AT complex_NN1 '_GE play_NN1 of_IO dependencies_NN2 '_GE ,_, links_NN2 and_CC redistributions_NN2 ,_, rather_CS21 than_CS22 to_TO provide_VVI yet_RR another_DD1 account_NN1 of_IO change_NN1 ,_, succession_NN1 and_CC its_APPGE causes_NN2 ._. 
The_AT Order_NN1 of_IO Things_NN2 ,_, although_CS in_II many_DA2 ways_NN2 Foucault_NP1 's_GE most_RGT influential_JJ work_NN1 ,_, remains_VVZ ,_, however_RR ,_, an_AT1 oddity_NN1 in_II certain_JJ respects_NN2 :_: first_MD ,_, that_CST in_II arguing_VVG for_IF an_AT1 a_JJ21 priori_JJ22 common_JJ to_II a_AT1 (_( limited_JJ )_) number_NN1 of_IO knowledges_NN2 ,_, Foucault_VV0 at_II times_NNT2 seems_VVZ to_TO be_VBI advocating_VVG a_AT1 structural_JJ key_NN1 between_II different_JJ levels_NN2 within_II the_AT episteme_NN1 ,_, thus_RR restoring_VVG the_AT form_NN1 of_IO the_AT essential_JJ section_NN1 so_RR criticized_VVN by_II Althusser_NP1 ._. 
Foucault_NN1 has_VHZ even_RR been_VBN accused_VVN of_IO returning_VVG ,_, in_II this_DD1 work_NN1 ,_, to_II the_AT concept_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 totality_NN1 in_II the_AT episteme_NN1 ;_; it_PPH1 has_VHZ certainly_RR been_VBN somewhat_RR hastily_RR assumed_VVN that_CST the_AT latter_DA can_VM be_VBI appropriated_VVN more_RRR or_CC less_RRR as_II a_AT1 new_JJ way_NN1 of_IO describing_VVG a_AT1 historical_JJ '_GE period_NN1 '_GE ._. 
This_DD1 fails_VVZ to_TO recognize_VVI ,_, however_RR ,_, the_AT extent_NN1 to_II which_DDQ it_PPH1 articulates_VVZ only_RR the_AT structure_NN1 of_IO certain_JJ specific_JJ forms_NN2 of_IO knowledge_NN1 rather_II21 than_II22 some_DD single_JJ overarching_JJ principle_NN1 ._. 
The_AT constant_JJ emphasis_NN1 on_II its_APPGE being_VBG the_AT Western_JJ episteme_NN1 suggests_VVZ immediate_JJ problems_NN2 for_IF any_DD assumption_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 constitutes_VVZ a_AT1 totality_NN1 ._. 
The_AT episteme_NN1 rather_RR delineates_VVZ what_DDQ Foucault_NP1 calls_VVZ a_AT1 '_GE cluster_NN1 of_IO transformations_NN2 '_GE ;_; these_DD2 ,_, he_PPHS1 suggests_VVZ ,_, enable_VV0 the_AT substitution_NN1 of_IO '_GE differentiated_JJ analyses_NN2 for_IF the_AT themes_NN2 of_IO a_AT1 totalising_JJ history_NN1 :_: They_PPHS2 allow_VV0 us_PPIO2 to_TO describe_VVI ,_, as_II the_AT episteme_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 period_NN1 ,_, not_XX the_AT sum_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE knowledge_NN1 ,_, nor_CC the_AT general_JJ style_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE research_NN1 ,_, but_CCB the_AT deviation_NN1 ,_, distances_NN2 ,_, the_AT oppositions_NN2 ,_, the_AT differences_NN2 ,_, the_AT relations_NN2 of_IO its_APPGE multiple_JJ scientific_JJ discourses_NN2 :_: the_AT epistemic_JJ is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 sort_NN1 of_IO grand_JJ underlying_JJ theory_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ a_AT1 space_NN1 of_IO dispersion_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ an_AT1 open_JJ field_NN1 of_IO relationships_NN2 and_CC no_RR21 doubt_RR22 indefinitely_RR specifiable_JJ ._. 
They_PPHS2 allow_VV0 us_PPIO2 furthermore_RR to_TO describe_VVI not_XX the_AT great_JJ history_NN1 which_DDQ would_VM carry_VVI along_RP all_DB the_AT sciences_NN2 in_II a_AT1 single_JJ trajectory_NN1 ,_, but_CCB the_AT types_NN2 of_IO history_NN1 that_REX41 is_REX42 to_REX43 say_REX44 ,_, of_IO retentivity_NN1 and_CC transformation_NN1 which_DDQ characterize_VV0 different_JJ discourses_NN2 ..._... the_AT episteme_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 slice_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 common_JJ to_II all_DB the_AT sciences_NN2 :_: it_PPH1 is_VBZ a_AT1 simultaneous_JJ play_NN1 of_IO specific_JJ remanences._NNU finally_RR they_PPHS2 allow_VV0 us_PPIO2 to_TO situate_VVI the_AT different_JJ thresholds_NN2 in_II their_APPGE respective_JJ place_NN1 :_: for_IF nothing_PN1 proves_VVZ in_II advance_NN1 ..._... that_CST their_APPGE chronology_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT same_DA for_IF all_DB types_NN2 of_IO discourse_NN1 ..._... 
The_AT episteme_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 general_JJ stage_NN1 of_IO reason_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ a_AT1 complex_JJ relationship_NN1 of_IO successive_JJ displacements_NN2 ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ very_RG different_JJ from_II the_AT integral_JJ paradigms_NN2 of_IO Thomas_NP1 Kuhn_NP1 to_II which_DDQ Foucault_NP1 's_GE epistemes_NN2 are_VBR sometimes_RT compared_VVN ._. 
But_CCB if_CS The_AT Order_NN1 of_IO Things_NN2 is_VBZ thus_RR concerned_JJ to_TO analyse_VVI '_GE ensembles_NN2 of_IO discourses_NN2 '_GE that_CST do_VD0 not_XX form_VVI a_AT1 totality_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 does_VDZ not_XX focus_VVI on_II the_AT ways_NN2 in_II which_DDQ such_DA forms_NN2 of_IO knowledges_NN2 relate_VV0 to_II the_AT institutions_NN2 in_II which_DDQ and_CC through_II which_DDQ they_PPHS2 are_VBR produced_VVN ._. 
In_II The_AT Archaeology_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 Foucault_NN1 corrects_VVZ this_DD1 by_II addressing_VVG the_AT difficulties_NN2 of_IO making_VVG knowledges_NN2 intelligible_JJ as_II a_AT1 part_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE institutional_JJ ,_, social_JJ and_CC political_JJ practices_NN2 ._. 
III_MC ARCHAEOLOGY_NN1 Foucault_NP1 's_GE distrust_NN1 of_IO conventional_JJ forms_NN2 of_IO history_NN1 ,_, as_CSA we_PPIS2 have_VH0 seen_VVN ,_, is_VBZ a_AT1 consistent_JJ thread_NN1 in_II his_APPGE project_NN1 ,_, as_CSA is_VBZ his_APPGE insistence_NN1 that_CST his_APPGE historical_JJ method_NN1 is_VBZ limited_VVN to_II addressing_VVG specific_JJ problems_NN2 often_RR comparable_JJ to_II those_DD2 posed_VVN by_II the_AT social_JJ sciences_NN2 to_II historical_JJ documents_NN2 and_CC practices_NN2 in_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO make_VVI them_PPHO2 intelligible_JJ ._. 
Only_RR once_RR ,_, however_RR ,_, does_VDZ he_PPHS1 devote_VVI a_AT1 whole_JJ book_NN1 to_II the_AT problem_NN1 of_IO historical_JJ methodology_NN1 ._. 
In_II The_AT Archaeology_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 he_PPHS1 develops_VVZ his_APPGE suggestion_NN1 in_II The_AT Order_NN1 of_IO Things_NN2 that_CST an_AT1 epistemological_JJ mutation_NN1 is_VBZ taking_VVG place_NN1 today_RT with_II31 regard_II32 to_II33 the_AT very_JJ concept_NN1 and_CC methodology_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ._. 
The_AT book_NN1 is_VBZ both_RR an_AT1 account_NN1 of_IO and_CC an_AT1 intervention_NN1 in_II that_DD1 process_NN1 ,_, veering_VVG between_II the_AT descriptive_JJ and_CC the_AT prescriptive_JJ ._. 
It_PPH1 begins_VVZ by_II delineating_VVG the_AT epistemological_JJ shift_NN1 :_: the_AT old_JJ order_NN1 could_VM be_VBI termed_VVN '_GE History_NN1 '_GE ,_, a_AT1 continuous_JJ and_CC chronological_JJ historiography_NN1 ,_, including_II Hegelianism_NN1 and_CC related_JJ forms_NN2 of_IO Marxism_NN1 ,_, with_IW its_APPGE philosophies_NN2 of_IO history_NN1 ,_, its_APPGE assumptions_NN2 of_IO a_AT1 rational_JJ ,_, progressive_JJ and_CC teleological_JJ historical_JJ development_NN1 ,_, its_APPGE desire_NN1 to_TO discover_VVI a_AT1 meaning_NN1 in_II history_NN1 ,_, its_APPGE questioning_NN1 of_IO the_AT relativity_NN1 of_IO historical_JJ knowledge_NN1 ,_, and_CC its_APPGE use_NN1 of_IO categories_NN2 such_II21 as_II22 tradition_NN1 ,_, the_AT history_NN1 of_IO ideas_NN2 ,_, the_AT oeuvre_NN1 ,_, the_AT author_NN1 and_CC the_AT book_NN1 ._. 
Against_II this_DD1 Foucault_NN1 contrasts_VVZ the_AT work_NN1 of_IO the_AT Annales_FW school_NN1 which_DDQ analyses_VVZ long_JJ continuities_NN2 in_II certain_JJ social_JJ forms_NN2 :_: The_AT old_JJ questions_NN2 of_IO the_AT traditional_JJ analysis_NN1 (_( What_DDQ link_VV0 should_VM be_VBI made_VVN between_II disparate_JJ events_NN2 ?_? 
Flow_NN1 can_VM a_AT1 causal_JJ succession_NN1 be_VBI established_VVN between_II them_PPHO2 ?_? 
What_DDQ continuity_NN1 or_CC overall_JJ significance_NN1 do_VD0 they_PPHS2 possess_VVI ?_? 
Is_VBZ it_PPH1 possible_JJ to_TO define_VVI a_AT1 totality_NN1 ,_, or_CC must_VM one_PN1 be_VBI content_JJ with_IW reconstituting_VVG connections_NN2 ?_? )_) are_VBR now_RT being_VBG replaced_VVN by_II questions_NN2 of_IO another_DD1 type_NN1 :_: which_DDQ strata_NN2 should_VM be_VBI isolated_VVN from_II others_NN2 ?_? 
What_DDQ types_NN2 of_IO series_NN should_VM be_VBI established_VVN ?_? 
What_DDQ criteria_NN2 of_IO periodisation_NN1 should_VM be_VBI adopted_VVN for_IF each_DD1 of_IO them_PPHO2 ?_? 
What_DDQ system_NN1 of_IO relations_NN2 (_( hierarchy_NN1 ,_, dominance_NN1 ,_, stratification_NN1 ,_, univocal_JJ determination_NN1 ,_, circular_JJ causality_NN1 )_) may_VM be_VBI established_VVN between_II them_PPHO2 ?_? 
What_DDQ series_NN of_IO series_NN may_VM be_VBI established_VVN ?_? 
And_CC in_II what_DDQ large-scale_JJ chronological_JJ table_NN1 may_VM distinct_JJ series_NN of_IO events_NN2 be_VBI determined_VVN ?_? (_( 3_MC 4_MC )_) Foucault_NP1 notes_VVZ that_CST ,_, at_II the_AT same_DA time_NNT1 as_CSA the_AT Annales_FW school_NN1 and_CC others_NN2 were_VBDR constructing_VVG a_AT1 history_NN1 according_II21 to_II22 the_AT long_JJ dure_NN1 ,_, in_II the_AT history_NN1 of_IO science_NN1 ,_, philosophy_NN1 ,_, and_CC literature_NN1 ,_, attention_NN1 was_VBDZ turning_VVG in_RP exactly_RR the_AT opposite_JJ direction_NN1 ,_, that_DD1 is_VBZ away_II21 from_II22 vast_JJ unities_NN2 towards_II phenomena_NN2 of_IO rupture_NN1 ,_, discontinuity_NN1 ,_, displacement_NN1 and_CC transformation_NN1 ,_, towards_II different_JJ temporalities_NN2 as_II31 well_II32 as_II33 architectonic_JJ unities_NN2 ._. 
Here_RL he_PPHS1 instances_NN2 in_RR21 particular_RR22 the_AT work_NN1 of_IO Bachelard_NP1 ,_, Canguilhem_NP1 ,_, Serres_NP1 ,_, Guroult_NP1 ,_, and_CC Althusser_NP1 ._. 
He_PPHS1 argues_VVZ that_CST ,_, given_VVN the_AT proliferation_NN1 of_IO both_DB2 discontinuities_NN2 and_CC long_JJ periods_NN2 ,_, the_AT problem_NN1 is_VBZ now_RT to_TO constitute_VVI the_AT series_NN ,_, its_APPGE elements_NN2 ,_, its_APPGE limits_NN2 ,_, and_CC its_APPGE relation_NN1 to_II other_JJ series_NN ._. 
In_II other_JJ words_NN2 ,_, rather_CS21 than_CS22 set_VVI these_DD2 antithetical_JJ approaches_NN2 against_II each_PPX221 other_PPX222 as_CSA one_PN1 might_VM have_VHI expected_VVN ,_, Foucault_NP1 suggests_VVZ that_CST they_PPHS2 are_VBR part_NN1 of_IO the_AT same_DA mutation_NN1 ._. 
Foucault_NN1 characterizes_VVZ this_DD1 epistemic_JJ shift_NN1 in_II31 terms_II32 of_II33 the_AT difference_NN1 between_II what_DDQ he_PPHS1 calls_NN2 '_GE total_NN1 '_GE and_CC '_GE general_NN1 '_GE history_NN1 ,_, or_CC ,_, History_NN1 and_CC archaeology_NN1 ._. 
He_PPHS1 explains_VVZ this_DD1 as_CSA follows_VVZ ._. 
Total_NN1 ,_, or_CC ,_, elsewhere_RL ,_, global_JJ ,_, history_NN1 assumes_VVZ a_AT1 spatio-temporal_JJ continuity_NN1 between_II all_DB phenomena_NN2 ,_, and_CC a_AT1 certain_JJ homogeneity_NN1 between_II them_PPHO2 insofar_CS21 as_CS22 they_PPHS2 all_DB express_VV0 the_AT same_DA form_NN1 of_IO historicity_NN1 Althusser_NP1 's_GE essential_JJ section_NN1 whereas_CS in_RR21 general_RR22 history_NN1 the_AT problem_NN1 is_VBZ precisely_RR to_TO determine_VVI the_AT relation_NN1 between_II different_JJ series_NN :_: whereas_CS a_AT1 total_JJ history_NN1 draws_VVZ everything_PN1 together_RL according_II21 to_II22 a_AT1 single_JJ principle_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 general_JJ history_NN1 analyses_VVZ the_AT space_NN1 of_IO dispersion_NN1 and_CC heterogeneous_JJ temporalities_NN2 ._. 
Total_JJ history_NN1 seeks_VVZ to_TO reconstitute_VVI the_AT overall_JJ form_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 society_NN1 according_II21 to_II22 some_DD fundamental_JJ principle_NN1 ,_, law_NN1 ,_, or_CC form_NN1 ,_, be_VBI it_PPH1 metaphysical_JJ or_CC material_NN1 ,_, while_CS general_JJ history_NN1 despite_II its_APPGE name_NN1 is_VBZ by_RR31 no_RR32 means_RR33 concerned_JJ to_TO produce_VVI a_AT1 general_JJ theory_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ,_, nor_CC even_RR a_AT1 cohesive_JJ or_CC comprehensive_JJ view_NN1 ,_, but_CCB rather_RR to_TO conduct_VVI a_AT1 historical_JJ investigation_NN1 according_II21 to_II22 particular_JJ problems_NN2 ,_, opening_VVG up_RP a_AT1 field_NN1 '_GE in_II which_DDQ one_PN1 could_VM describe_VVI the_AT singularity_NN1 of_IO practices_NN2 ,_, the_AT play_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE relations_NN2 '_GE ._. 
Foucault_NN1 specifies_VVZ the_AT difference_NN1 between_II them_PPHO2 by_II contrasting_VVG their_APPGE relation_NN1 to_II the_AT document_NN1 :_: the_AT historians_NN2 of_IO total_JJ history_NN1 have_VH0 been_VBN engaged_VVN above_II all_DB in_II the_AT interpretation_NN1 of_IO documents_NN2 ,_, attempting_VVG to_TO reconstitute_VVI the_AT past_NN1 ,_, to_TO give_VVI it_PPH1 an_AT1 inner_JJ meaning_NN1 (_( always_RR available_JJ only_RR to_II the_AT historian_NN1 )_) ,_, to_TO recover_VVI a_AT1 voice_NN1 and_CC allow_VVI it_PPH1 to_TO speak_VVI ._. 
The_AT historians_NN2 of_IO a_AT1 general_JJ history_NN1 ,_, on_II the_AT other_JJ hand_NN1 ,_, reject_VV0 interpretation_NN1 as_CSA such_DA in_II31 favour_II32 of_II33 making_VVG the_AT evidence_NN1 of_IO documents_NN2 intelligible_JJ by_II posing_VVG questions_NN2 to_II them_PPHO2 ,_, constituting_VVG through_II such_DA questions_NN2 what_DDQ counts_VVZ as_CSA the_AT series_NN of_IO historical_JJ events_NN2 ,_, its_APPGE elements_NN2 ,_, its_APPGE limits_NN2 ,_, and_CC its_APPGE relation_NN1 to_II other_JJ series_NN ,_, or_CC what_DDQ rules_NN2 operated_VVN for_IF particular_JJ discursive_JJ practices_NN2 ._. 
This_DD1 stress_NN1 on_II intelligibility_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 useful_JJ corrective_NN1 to_II the_AT widespread_JJ current_JJ assumption_NN1 for_IF which_DDQ Foucault_VV0 himself_PPX1 is_VBZ also_RR partly_RR responsible_JJ that_CST history_NN1 is_VBZ just_RR another_DD1 form_NN1 of_IO interpretation_NN1 ._. 
Unexpectedly_RR ,_, perhaps_RR ,_, Foucault_NP1 traces_VVZ the_AT beginnings_NN2 of_IO this_DD1 epistemic_JJ mutation_NN1 in_II the_AT thinking_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 to_II Marx_NP1 ._. 
This_DD1 implies_VVZ a_AT1 challenge_NN1 that_CST contemporary_JJ Marxism_NN1 has_VHZ yet_RR to_TO address_VVI ._. 
As_CSA we_PPIS2 have_VH0 seen_VVN ,_, for_IF some_DD Foucault_NN1 can_VM apparently_RR be_VBI dismissed_VVN with_IW ease_NN1 as_CSA merely_RR the_AT philosopher_NN1 of_IO discontinuity_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 description_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ hardly_RR adequate_JJ ;_; for_IF others_NN2 ,_, criticism_NN1 takes_VVZ the_AT form_NN1 that_CST he_PPHS1 simply_RR relativizes_VVZ history_NN1 ,_, but_CCB this_DD1 is_VBZ really_RR no_AT better_JJR ,_, for_IF history_NN1 is_VBZ itself_PPX1 a_AT1 mode_NN1 of_IO demonstrating_VVG the_AT relativity_NN1 ,_, temporariness_NN1 ,_, and_CC temporality_NN1 of_IO phenomena_NN2 ._. 
Unless_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ possible_JJ to_TO prove_VVI the_AT identification_NN1 of_IO History_NN1 with_IW Truth_NN1 ,_, as_CSA Sartre_NP1 tried_VVD to_TO do_VDI ,_, then_RT the_AT claim_NN1 that_CST a_AT1 single_JJ univocal_JJ History_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX relative_JJ only_JJ works_NN by_II removing_VVG all_DB other_JJ elements_NN2 in_II the_AT set_NN1 to_II which_DDQ it_PPH1 could_VM be_VBI compared_VVN ,_, thus_RR making_VVG a_AT1 set_NN1 of_IO one_PN1 ._. 
Effectively_RR ,_, however_RR ,_, all_DB this_DD1 does_VDZ is_VBZ to_TO turn_VVI all_DB history_NN1 into_II a_AT1 single_JJ event_NN1 which_DDQ ,_, paradoxically_RR ,_, dehistoricizes_VVZ it_PPH1 ._. 
What_DDQ has_VHZ not_XX been_VBN adequately_RR considered_VVN is_VBZ Foucault_NP1 's_GE characterization_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 epistemological_JJ shift_NN1 within_II the_AT theorization_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 itself_PPX1 ._. 
He_PPHS1 suggests_VVZ not_XX only_RR that_CST it_PPH1 begins_VVZ with_IW Marx_NP1 but_CCB that_CST he_PPHS1 himself_PPX1 forms_VVZ part_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 mutation_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ means_VVZ that_CST ,_, according_II21 to_II22 his_APPGE argument_NN1 ,_, in_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO dismiss_VVI him_PPHO1 you_PPY would_VM have_VHI to_TO dismiss_VVI Marx_NP1 also_RR ._. 
Foucault_VV0 thus_RR does_VDZ not_XX merely_RR set_VVI up_RP an_AT1 alternative_JJ history_NN1 ,_, but_CCB contends_VVZ that_CST that_DD1 alternative_NN1 is_VBZ part_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 displacement_NN1 that_CST is_VBZ in_II the_AT process_NN1 of_IO replacing_VVG the_AT history_NN1 that_CST preceded_VVD it_PPH1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ therefore_RR necessary_JJ to_TO address_VVI not_XX only_RR his_APPGE theoretical_JJ and_CC methodological_JJ but_CCB also_RR his_APPGE historical_JJ arguments_NN2 something_PN1 that_CST his_APPGE critics_NN2 have_VH0 singularly_RR failed_VVN to_TO do_VDI ._. 
The_AT Archaeology_NN1 of_IO Knowledge_NN1 thus_RR analyses_VVZ the_AT shift_NN1 in_II historiography_NN1 of_IO which_DDQ Foucault_VV0 himself_PPX1 is_VBZ the_AT most_RGT powerful_JJ contemporary_JJ representative_NN1 ._. 
As_CSA epistemic_JJ breaks_NN2 go_VV0 ,_, however_RR ,_, it_PPH1 seems_VVZ to_TO be_VBI a_AT1 slow_JJ one_PN1 :_: Foucault_NP1 attributes_VVZ its_APPGE hesitancy_NN1 to_II a_AT1 fundamental_JJ reluctance_NN1 to_TO think_VVI difference_NN1 rather_II21 than_II22 the_AT reassuring_JJ form_NN1 of_IO the_AT identical_JJ :_: it_PPH1 is_VBZ ,_, he_PPHS1 comments_VVZ ,_, '_GE as_CS21 if_CS22 we_PPIS2 were_VBDR afraid_JJ to_TO conceive_VVI of_IO the_AT Other_JJ in_II the_AT time_NNT1 of_IO our_APPGE own_DA thought_NN1 '_GE ._. 
Here_RL we_PPIS2 encounter_VV0 the_AT continuing_JJ dominance_NN1 of_IO the_AT philosophy_NN1 of_IO the_AT subject_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ ,_, according_II21 to_II22 Foucault_NP1 ,_, was_VBDZ specifically_RR introduced_VVN in_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO provide_VVI a_AT1 '_GE shelter_NN1 for_IF the_AT sovereignty_NN1 of_IO consciousness_NN1 '_GE against_II the_AT intrusion_NN1 of_IO heterogeneity_NN1 ._. 
Continuous_JJ history_NN1 and_CC the_AT subject_NN1 are_VBR thus_RR dependent_JJ on_II each_PPX221 other_PPX222 ._. 
Instead_II21 of_II22 centring_VVG his_APPGE analyses_NN2 on_II the_AT knowledge_NN1 derived_VVN from_II the_AT experience_NN1 of_IO the_AT subject_NN1 ,_, Foucault_NP1 investigates_VVZ the_AT conditions_NN2 of_IO emergence_NN1 of_IO the_AT subject_NN1 as_II the_AT basis_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 ;_; he_PPHS1 argues_VVZ that_CST at_II the_AT same_DA time_NNT1 as_CSA it_PPH1 was_VBDZ widely_RR proposed_VVN as_II the_AT one_PN1 saving_VVG good_JJ of_IO human_JJ civilization_NN1 it_PPH1 also_RR facilitated_VVN a_AT1 more_RGR sinister_JJ operation_NN1 ._. 
Just_RR as_CSA History_NN1 involved_VVD the_AT legitimation_NN1 as_CSA knowledge_NN1 of_IO certain_JJ forms_NN2 of_IO political_JJ power_NN1 ,_, so_CS the_AT production_NN1 of_IO the_AT subject_NN1 by_II the_AT human_JJ sciences_NN2 as_II an_AT1 object_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 also_RR enabled_VVD a_AT1 new_JJ form_NN1 of_IO political_JJ control_NN1 :_: '_GE The_AT individual_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 pre-given_JJ entity_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ seized_VVN on_RP by_II the_AT exercise_NN1 of_IO power_NN1 ._. 
The_AT individual_NN1 ,_, with_IW his_APPGE identity_NN1 and_CC characteristics_NN2 ,_, is_VBZ the_AT product_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 relation_NN1 of_IO power_NN1 exercised_VVN over_II bodies_NN2 '_GE ._. 
In_II Discipline_NN1 and_CC Punish_VV0 Foucault_NP1 demonstrates_VVZ how_RRQ the_AT individual_NN1 is_VBZ constituted_VVN through_II specific_JJ technologies_NN2 of_IO power_NN1 ;_; in_II the_AT History_NN1 of_IO Sexuality_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 shows_VVZ the_AT extent_NN1 to_II which_DDQ the_AT human_JJ sciences_NN2 ,_, including_II medicine_NN1 and_CC the_AT practice_NN1 of_IO psychoanalysis_NN1 ,_, facilitated_VVD the_AT extension_NN1 of_IO control_NN1 beyond_II the_AT limits_NN2 of_IO the_AT body_NN1 in_II the_AT construction_NN1 of_IO the_AT inner_JJ realms_NN2 of_IO subjectivity_NN1 ,_, consciousness_NN1 and_CC experience_NN1 ._. 
Foucault_NN1 argues_VVZ that_CST a_AT1 whole_JJ series_NN of_IO movements_NN2 since_CS the_AT nineteenth_MD century_NNT1 ,_, including_II various_JJ anthropologizing_JJ Marxisms_NN2 ,_, have_VH0 developed_VVN complicitly_RR with_IW this_DD1 so_BCL21 as_BCL22 to_TO preserve_VVI the_AT sovereignty_NN1 of_IO the_AT subject_NN1 against_II Marx_NP1 's_GE and_CC others_NN2 '_GE decentrings_NN2 :_: positivism_NN1 ,_, the_AT Hegelian_JJ Marxism_NN1 of_IO Lukcs_NP2 ,_, the_AT Marxist_JJ humanism_NN1 of_IO Sartre_NP1 ,_, as_II31 well_II32 as_II33 various_JJ theories_NN2 of_IO cultural_JJ totalities_NN2 such_II21 as_II22 that_DD1 of_IO the_AT Frankfurt_NP1 School_NN1 ._. 
Dispensing_VVG with_IW the_AT subject_NN1 necessarily_RR also_RR means_VVZ the_AT end_NN1 of_IO the_AT use_NN1 of_IO the_AT category_NN1 of_IO ideology_NN1 ;_; in_II this_DD1 context_NN1 Foucault_NN1 's_GE later_JJR work_NN1 counters_VVZ Althusser_NP1 's_GE influential_JJ essay_NN1 on_II ideological_JJ state_NN1 apparatuses_NN2 ._. 
Many_DA2 of_IO those_DD2 now_RT hostile_JJ to_II Althusser_NP1 continue_VV0 to_TO endorse_VVI this_DD1 essay_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ offers_VVZ a_AT1 theory_NN1 of_IO institutional_JJ power_NN1 dependent_JJ on_II the_AT categories_NN2 of_IO the_AT subject_NN1 and_CC ideology_NN1 ._. 
Foucault_NN1 is_VBZ critical_JJ of_IO such_DA a_AT1 theory_NN1 not_XX just_RR because_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ based_VVN on_II a_AT1 science/non-science_NN1 distinction_NN1 which_DDQ for_IF him_PPHO1 is_VBZ simply_RR the_AT product_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 particular_JJ discursive_JJ formation_NN1 which_DDQ claims_VVZ access_NN1 to_II the_AT real_JJ ,_, rather_II21 than_II22 involving_VVG any_DD epistemological_JJ questions_NN2 of_IO truth_NN1 or_CC objectivity_NN1 ,_, but_CCB also_RR because_CS it_PPH1 produces_VVZ the_AT notion_NN1 of_IO ideology_NN1 as_II a_AT1 secondary_JJ mediation_NN1 (_( as_CSA in_II Althusser_NP1 's_GE interpellation_NN1 )_) in_II an_AT1 inside/outside_JJ structure_NN1 between_II the_AT determinants_NN2 of_IO power_NN1 and_CC the_AT individual_JJ subject_NN1 ._. 
For_IF Foucault_NP1 ,_, the_AT tendency_NN1 of_IO theories_NN2 of_IO ideology_NN1 to_TO entrammel_VVI themselves_PPX2 in_II the_AT categories_NN2 of_IO psychoanalysis_NN1 ,_, even_RR with_IW the_AT eternal_JJ in_II Althusser_NP1 's_GE case_NN1 ,_, means_VVZ that_CST they_PPHS2 themselves_PPX2 begin_VV0 to_TO utilize_VVI the_AT very_JJ procedures_NN2 of_IO individuation_NN1 that_CST they_PPHS2 ought_VMK to_TO have_VHI been_VBN analysing_VVG ._. 
The_AT questions_NN2 of_IO the_AT subject_NN1 and_CC of_IO ideology_NN1 raise_VV0 as_CSA their_APPGE corollary_NN1 the_AT problem_NN1 of_IO what_DDQ position_NN1 of_IO enunciation_NN1 the_AT historian_NN1 can_VM claim_VVI in_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 his_APPGE or_CC her_APPGE own_DA work_NN1 ._. 
Foucault_NN1 is_VBZ particularly_RR critical_JJ of_IO the_AT appropriating_JJ structure_NN1 of_IO totalization_NN1 ,_, Marxist_JJ or_CC otherwise_RR ,_, insofar_CS21 as_CS22 it_PPH1 implies_VVZ the_AT superiority_NN1 of_IO the_AT theorist_NN1 who_PNQS produces_VVZ the_AT totalization_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 ;_; in_II the_AT same_DA way_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 distrusts_VVZ the_AT use_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 as_II an_AT1 encompassing_VVG framework_NN1 because_CS it_PPH1 works_VVZ as_II a_AT1 power_NN1 structure_NN1 that_CST enables_VVZ the_AT expropriation_NN1 and_CC control_NN1 of_IO the_AT past_NN1 according_II21 to_II22 the_AT perspective_NN1 and_CC truth_NN1 of_IO the_AT present_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 elides_VVZ the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST the_AT historian_NN1 will_VM always_RR also_RR be_VBI historically_RR located_VVN and_CC therefore_RR can_VM not_XX be_VBI in_II a_AT1 position_NN1 to_TO produce_VVI a_AT1 final_JJ totalization_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 dialectical_JJ situation_NN1 anticipated_VVN by_II Sartre_NP1 ._. 
Foucault_NN1 argues_VVZ that_CST just_RR as_CSA there_EX can_VM be_VBI no_AT general_JJ theory_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ,_, but_CCB only_RR particular_JJ answers_NN2 to_II particular_JJ questions_NN2 which_DDQ make_VV0 individual_JJ practices_NN2 intelligible_JJ ,_, so_CS the_AT intellectual_NN1 can_VM best_RRT hope_VVI to_TO be_VBI specific_JJ rather_II21 than_II22 universal_JJ (_( universal_JJ in_II the_AT sense_NN1 of_IO proposing_VVG transcendent_JJ values_NN2 ,_, systems_NN2 ,_, totalities_NN2 ,_, narratives_NN2 or_CC teleologies_NN2 )_) ._. 
This_DD1 does_VDZ not_XX mean_VVI that_CST the_AT intellectual_NN1 therefore_RR nihilistically_RR celebrates_VVZ dispersion_NN1 ,_, fragmentation_NN1 or_CC relativity_NN1 :_: rather_RR she_PPHS1 or_CC he_PPHS1 is_VBZ the_AT person_NN1 who_PNQS ,_, facing_VVG such_DA dispersion_NN1 but_CCB without_IW conceding_VVG to_II the_AT nostalgic_JJ desire_NN1 for_IF totalization_NN1 ,_, poses_VVZ the_AT questions_NN2 and_CC constitutes_VVZ the_AT series_NN and_CC continuities_NN2 for_IF analysis_NN1 and_CC thus_RR for_IF transformation_NN1 while_CS attempting_VVG to_TO respect_VVI its_APPGE heterogeneity_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 suggests_VVZ why_RRQ ,_, contrary_II21 to_II22 the_AT way_NN1 in_II which_DDQ certain_JJ commentators_NN2 tend_VV0 to_TO represent_VVI them_PPHO2 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ clear_JJ that_CST for_IF Foucault_NP1 ,_, as_II21 for_II22 Lyotard_NP1 or_CC Derrida_NP1 ,_, total_JJ fragmentation_NN1 would_VM be_VBI as_RG counter-productive_JJ and_CC as_RG impossible_JJ as_CSA total_JJ synthesis_NN1 ._. 
As_CSA Gayatri_NP1 Chakravorty_NP1 Spivak_NP1 puts_VVZ it_PPH1 :_: '_GE Theoretical_JJ descriptions_NN2 can_VM not_XX produce_VVI universals_NN2 ._. 
They_PPHS2 can_VM only_RR ever_RR produce_VVI provisional_JJ generalizations_NN2 ,_, even_RR as_CSA the_AT theorist_NN1 realizes_VVZ the_AT crucial_JJ importance_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE persistent_JJ production_NN1 '_GE ._. 
Such_DA arguments_NN2 will_VM have_VHI no_AT pretensions_NN2 ,_, by_II definition_NN1 ,_, to_II knowledge-claims_NN2 that_CST affect_VV0 to_TO rise_VVI above_II the_AT historical_JJ conditions_NN2 in_II which_DDQ they_PPHS2 are_VBR made_VVN ._. 
IV_MC HISTORY_NN1 AND_CC THE_AT EVENT_NN1 Despite_II his_APPGE programmatic_JJ emphasis_NN1 in_II the_AT Archaeology_NN1 on_II the_AT discursive_JJ formation_NN1 as_II a_AT1 means_NN of_IO making_VVG intelligible_JJ those_DD2 knowledges_NN2 that_CST are_VBR formulated_VVN through_II their_APPGE institutional_JJ components_NN2 ,_, Foucault_NP1 turned_VVD away_II21 from_II22 this_DD1 kind_NN1 of_IO historical_JJ enquiry_NN1 because_CS it_PPH1 was_VBDZ too_RR '_GE clean_JJ ,_, conceptually_RR aseptic_JJ '_GE in_II other_JJ words_NN2 ,_, too_RG apolitical_JJ ._. 
Foucault_VV0 therefore_RR abandons_VVZ analysis_NN1 of_IO epistemes_NN2 for_IF the_AT more_DAR Nietzschean_NN1 '_GE genealogy_NN1 '_GE ,_, which_DDQ allows_VVZ him_PPHO1 to_TO articulate_VVI conflict_NN1 in_II31 terms_II32 of_II33 differentiated_JJ histories_NN2 with_IW their_APPGE own_DA conceptual_JJ specificities_NN2 and_CC their_APPGE own_DA times_NNT2 ,_, while_CS retaining_VVG the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO the_AT formulation_NN1 of_IO aims_NN2 and_CC intentions_NN2 :_: I_PPIS1 would_VM call_VVI genealogy_NN1 ..._... a_AT1 form_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 which_DDQ can_VM account_VVI for_IF the_AT constitution_NN1 of_IO knowledges_NN2 ,_, discourses_NN2 ,_, domains_NN2 of_IO objects_NN2 etc._RA ,_, without_IW having_VHG to_TO make_VVI reference_NN1 to_II a_AT1 subject_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ either_RR transcendental_JJ in_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 the_AT field_NN1 of_IO events_NN2 or_CC runs_VVZ in_II its_APPGE empty_JJ sameness_NN1 throughout_II the_AT course_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ._. 
Genealogy_NN1 develops_VVZ the_AT possibility_NN1 broached_VVN in_II the_AT Archaeology_NN1 that_CST in_II a_AT1 general_JJ history_NN1 different_JJ significances_NN2 can_VM be_VBI accorded_VVN to_II events_NN2 ,_, depending_II21 on_II22 '_" their_APPGE correlation_NN1 with_IW other_JJ previous_JJ or_CC simultaneous_JJ events_NN2 ,_, discursive_JJ or_CC not_XX '_GE ._. 
Here_RL it_PPH1 is_VBZ the_AT problem_NN1 the_AT historian_NN1 poses_VVZ that_CST determines_VVZ what_DDQ constitutes_VVZ an_AT1 event_NN1 and_CC what_DDQ status_NN1 it_PPH1 has_VHZ ._. 
Foucault_NP1 's_GE genealogy_NN1 means_VVZ that_CST by_II asking_VVG a_AT1 question_NN1 ,_, posing_VVG a_AT1 problem_NN1 ,_, you_PPY set_VV0 up_RP a_AT1 generality_NN1 against_II which_DDQ you_PPY constitute_VV0 events_NN2 and_CC arrange_VV0 them_PPHO2 in_II a_AT1 series_NN ._. 
The_AT construction_NN1 of_IO that_DD1 generality_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX pretend_VVI to_TO be_VBI the_AT only_JJ possible_JJ one_PN1 the_AT same_DA event_NN1 could_VM operate_VVI in_II all_DB sorts_NN2 of_IO different_JJ ways_NN2 in_II different_JJ series_NN ,_, temporalities_NN2 ,_, which_DDQ would_VM mean_VVI that_DD1 ,_, strictly_RR speaking_VVG ,_, it_PPH1 was_VBDZ no_RR21 longer_RR22 the_AT same_DA event_NN1 ,_, for_IF it_PPH1 would_VM have_VHI been_VBN dispersed_VVN in_II their_APPGE different_JJ rarefactions_NN2 ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ not_XX supposed_JJ to_TO suggest_VVI that_CST events_NN2 can_VM not_XX be_VBI said_VVN to_TO occur_VVI straightforwardly_RR in_II the_AT real_JJ but_CCB rather_RR that_CST when_CS set_VVN up_RP in_II any_DD series_NN ,_, narrative_NN1 ,_, or_CC history_NN1 they_PPHS2 are_VBR constructed_VVN as_CSA such_DA events_NN2 retrospectively_RR by_II the_AT historian_NN1 ._. 
If_CS all_DB history_NN1 attempts_NN2 to_TO conceptualize_VVI the_AT event_NN1 ,_, to_TO wean_VVI it_PPH1 from_II its_APPGE finitude_NN1 ,_, then_RT Foucault_VV0 like_II many_DA2 of_IO his_APPGE contemporaries_NN2 is_VBZ concerned_JJ to_TO respect_VVI its_APPGE singularity_NN1 ._. 
In_II the_AT essay_NN1 '_GE Theatum_NN1 philosophicum_NN1 '_GE (_( 1970_MC )_) ,_, written_VVN shortly_RR after_II the_AT Archaeology_NN1 ,_, Foucault_NP1 attempts_VVZ to_TO avoid_VVI the_AT snares_NN2 of_IO the_AT problem_NN1 of_IO the_AT relation_NN1 of_IO the_AT event_NN1 to_II the_AT totality_NN1 ,_, or_CC the_AT particular_JJ to_II the_AT general_NN1 ,_, that_CST beset_VVD both_RR Sartre_NP1 and_CC Althusser_NP1 ,_, by_II arguing_VVG that_CST the_AT event_NN1 as_CSA event_NN1 is_VBZ only_RR constituted_VVN through_II its_APPGE repetition_NN1 in_II thought_NN1 as_II a_AT1 '_GE phantasm_NN1 '_GE :_: '_" it_PPH1 makes_VVZ the_AT event_NN1 indefinite_JJ so_CS21 that_CS22 it_PPH1 repeats_VVZ itself_PPX1 as_II a_AT1 singular_JJ universal_NN1 '_GE ._. 
This_DD1 argument_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ Foucault_NP1 derives_VVZ from_II Deleuze_NP1 ,_, although_CS at_II the_AT same_DA time_NNT1 he_PPHS1 tellingly_RR invokes_VVZ Sartre_NP1 's_GE theoretical_JJ formulation_NN1 designed_VVN to_TO solve_VVI exactly_RR the_AT same_DA problem_NN1 ,_, provides_VVZ a_AT1 way_NN1 of_IO avoiding_VVG the_AT incommensurability_NN1 of_IO the_AT relation_NN1 of_IO the_AT event_NN1 to_II the_AT concept_NN1 by_II allowing_VVG '_GE the_AT disjunctive_JJ affirmation_NN1 of_IO both_RR '_GE thus_RR solving_VVG the_AT problem_NN1 that_CST the_AT concept_NN1 ,_, as_CSA a_AT1 part_NN1 of_IO the_AT language_NN1 of_IO generality_NN1 ,_, will_VM inevitably_RR travesty_VVI the_AT event_NN1 's_GE singularity_NN1 :_: Logique_NP1 du_FW sens_NN2 causes_VVZ us_PPIO2 to_TO reflect_VVI on_II matters_NN2 that_CST philosophy_NN1 has_VHZ neglected_VVN for_IF many_DA2 centuries_NNT2 :_: the_AT event_NN1 (_( assimilated_VVN in_II a_AT1 concept_NN1 ,_, from_II which_DDQ we_PPIS2 vainly_RR attempted_VVN to_TO extract_VVI it_PPH1 in_II the_AT form_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 fact_NN1 ,_, verifying_VVG a_AT1 proposition_NN1 ,_, of_IO actual_JJ experience_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 modality_NN1 of_IO the_AT subject_NN1 ,_, of_IO concreteness_NN1 ,_, the_AT empirical_JJ content_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 )_) ;_; and_CC the_AT phantasm_NN1 (_( reduced_VVN in_II the_AT name_NN1 of_IO reality_NN1 and_CC situated_VVN at_II the_AT extremity_NN1 ,_, the_AT pathological_JJ pole_NN1 ,_, of_IO a_AT1 normative_JJ sequence_NN1 :_: )_) ._. 
After_II all_DB ,_, what_DDQ most_RGT urgently_RR needs_VVZ thought_NN1 in_II this_DD1 century_NNT1 ,_, if_CS not_XX the_AT event_NN1 and_CC the_AT phantasm_NN1 ?_? 
Well_RR ,_, it_PPH1 might_VM be_VBI hard_JJ to_TO see_VVI it_PPH1 as_CSA that_RG important_JJ ._. 
Foucault_NP1 's_GE gesture_NN1 ,_, however_RR ,_, marks_VVZ the_AT radical_JJ scope_NN1 of_IO such_DA an_AT1 anti-essentialist_NN1 project_NN1 which_DDQ exploits_NN2 Plato_NP1 's_GE admission_NN1 that_CST there_EX can_VM not_XX only_RR be_VBI a_AT1 good_JJ copy_NN1 but_CCB also_RR a_AT1 bad_JJ one_PN1 (_( phantasma_NN1 )_) characteristic_NN1 of_IO the_AT secondary_JJ representations_NN2 of_IO the_AT poets_NN2 ._. 
Deleuze_NN1 reverses_VVZ Plato_NP1 by_II validating_VVG this_DD1 simulacrum_NN1 of_IO the_AT good_JJ copy_NN1 on_II the_AT grounds_NN2 that_CST ,_, precisely_RR because_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ a_AT1 bad_JJ copy_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 breaks_VVZ down_RP all_DB adequation_NN1 between_II copy_NN1 and_CC model_NN1 ,_, appearance_NN1 and_CC essence_NN1 ,_, event_NN1 and_CC Idea_NN1 ._. 
As_CSA plato_NN1 realized_VVD ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ dangerous_JJ because_CS its_APPGE effect_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO dethrone_VVI the_AT Idea_NN1 from_II its_APPGE position_NN1 of_IO Truth_NN1 ._. 
Moreover_RR ,_, because_CS the_AT bad_JJ copy_NN1 by_II definition_NN1 can_VM not_XX claim_VVI to_TO be_VBI copying_VVG anything_RR21 but_RR22 itself_PPX1 ,_, it_PPH1 creates_VVZ its_58 '_GE original_NN1 '_GE retroactively_RR ,_, so_CS21 that_CS22 the_AT copy_NN1 precedes_VVZ the_AT original_JJ in_II a_AT1 ghostly_JJ originary_JJ repetition_NN1 ._. 
Descombes_NP1 describes_VVZ a_AT1 comparable_JJ paradoxical_JJ structure_NN1 in_II his_APPGE account_NN1 of_IO '_GE originary_JJ delay_NN1 '_GE :_: a_AT1 first_MD event_NN1 can_VM not_XX be_VBI the_AT first_MD event_NN1 if_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ the_AT only_JJ event_NN1 ;_; it_PPH1 can_VM not_XX be_VBI said_VVN to_TO be_VBI a_AT1 first_MD until_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ followed_VVN by_II a_AT1 second_NNT1 ,_, which_DDQ then_RT retrospectively_RR constitutes_VVZ it_PPH1 as_II the_AT first_MD which_DDQ means_VVZ that_CST its_APPGE firstness_NN1 hovers_VVZ over_II it_PPH1 as_CSA its_APPGE meaning_NN1 without_IW being_VBG identifiable_JJ with_IW it_PPH1 as_II such_DA ._. 
Thus_RR ,_, the_AT phantasm_NN1 ,_, rather_II21 than_II22 constituting_VVG the_AT event_NN1 ,_, hovers_VVZ over_RP its_APPGE surface_NN1 like_II a_AT1 cloud_NN1 ,_, as_CSA an_AT1 effect_NN1 of_IO meaning_VVG not_XX identifiable_JJ with_IW anything_PN1 in_II the_AT event_NN1 as_II such_DA ._. 
Deleuze_NP1 's_GE best-known_JJ example_NN1 of_IO how_RRQ this_DD1 works_VVZ is_VBZ the_AT battle_NN1 :_: '_" Where_RRQ '_" '_GE ,_, he_PPHS1 asks_VVZ ,_, '_GE is_VBZ the_AT battle_NN1 ?_? 
What_DDQ we_PPIS2 call_VV0 a_AT1 battle_NN1 consists_VVZ of_IO a_AT1 vast_JJ ,_, heterogeneous_JJ array_NN1 of_IO individual_JJ actions_NN2 in_II the_AT field_NN1 fighting_NN1 ,_, firing_VVG ,_, charging_VVG ,_, wounding_VVG none_PN of_IO which_DDQ constitutes_58 '_GE the_AT battle_NN1 '_GE as_II such_DA ._. 
'_GE The_AT battle_NN1 '_GE hovers_VVZ over_II the_AT individual_JJ actions_NN2 like_VV0 in_II incorporeal_JJ cloud_NN1 ,_, distinct_JJ from_II them_PPHO2 ,_, but_CCB at_II the_AT same_DA time_NNT1 making_VVG up_RP a_AT1 surface_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE meaning-effect_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 simulacrum_NN1 that_CST brings_VVZ the_AT event_NN1 into_II being_VBG at_II the_AT moment_NN1 when_RRQ language_NN1 and_CC event_NN1 coincide_VV0 ._. 
Foucault_NN1 recognizes_VVZ in_II Deleuze_NP1 's_GE account_NN1 of_IO events_NN2 as_CSA singularities_NN2 ,_, points_NN2 or_CC intensities_NN2 on_II a_AT1 surface_NN1 ready_JJ to_TO be_VBI actualized_VVN in_II any_DD particular_JJ form_NN1 or_CC meaning_NN1 ,_, the_AT potential_NN1 for_IF pushing_VVG further_RRR his_APPGE own_DA notion_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 as_II a_AT1 genealogical_JJ series_NN ._. 
Such_DA genealogy_NN1 works_VVZ by_II repeating_VVG the_AT (_( non_FU )_) event_NN1 ,_, as_CSA an_AT1 event_NN1 ,_, in_II thought_NN1 in_II a_AT1 structure_NN1 comparable_JJ to_II Freud_NP1 's_GE '_GE deferred_JJ action_NN1 ,_, or_CC '_GE retroactivity_NN1 '_GE ._. 
No_AT more_DAR than_CSN the_AT latter_DA does_VDZ it_PPH1 seek_VVI to_TO lay_VVI claim_NN1 to_II '_GE the_AT real_JJ ,_, or_CC Truth_NN1 as_II such_DA ._. 
Foucault_NN1 inflects_VVZ this_DD1 model_NN1 by_II focusing_VVG on_II the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO constructing_VVG the_AT series_NN so_BCL21 as_BCL22 to_TO repeat_VVI the_AT disruption_NN1 and_CC discontinuity_NN1 of_IO the_AT (_( non-original_JJ )_) event_NN1 ._. 
In_II freud_NN1 ,_, the_AT point_NN1 is_VBZ similarly_RR not_XX just_RR the_AT question_NN1 on_II which_DDQ most_DAT attention_NN1 gets_VVZ focused_VVN of_IO whether_CSW the_AT event_NN1 '_GE really_RR '_GE happened_VVD (_( a_AT1 good_JJ copy_NN1 )_) or_CC was_VBDZ subsequently_RR fantasized_VVN by_II the_AT experiencing_VVG subject_NN1 (_( a_AT1 bad_JJ copy_NN1 )_) ,_, but_CCB rather_RR that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ repeated_VVN as_II a_AT1 disruptive_JJ event_NN1 that_CST fissures_NN2 ordinary_JJ forms_NN2 of_IO psychic_JJ continuity_NN1 and_CC therefore_RR gains_VVZ analytic_JJ attention_NN1 in_II the_AT present_NN1 ._. 
The_AT same_DA structure_NN1 can_VM be_VBI utilized_VVN by_II the_AT historian_NN1 so_CS21 that_CS22 the_AT writing_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 can_VM itself_PPX1 become_VVI a_AT1 disruptive_JJ event_NN1 and_CC consequently_RR a_AT1 form_NN1 of_IO political_JJ intervention_NN1 ._. 
V_ZZ1 FOUCAULT_NP1 'S_GE PHANTASMS_NN2 If_CS Foucault_NP1 proposes_VVZ the_AT philosophy_NN1 of_IO the_AT phantasm_NN1 as_II a_AT1 way_NN1 for_IF the_AT historian_NN1 to_TO produce_VVI the_AT meaning-effect_NN1 of_IO the_AT event_NN1 while_CS still_RR doing_VDG justice_NN1 to_II its_APPGE singularity_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 also_RR offers_VVZ a_AT1 way_NN1 of_IO thinking_VVG through_RP some_DD of_IO the_AT paradoxes_NN2 that_CST we_PPIS2 have_VH0 encountered_VVN in_II the_AT problematic_JJ conceptualization_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ._. 
From_II Sartre_NP1 to_II Foucault_NP1 history_NN1 has_VHZ repeatedly_RR emerged_VVN as_II a_AT1 contradictory_JJ concept_NN1 ,_, both_RR totalizing_VVG and_CC detotalizing_VVG ,_, essentialist_NN1 and_CC non-essentialist_NN1 ._. 
Such_DA contradictions_NN2 can_VM be_VBI productive_JJ :_: the_AT attempt_NN1 to_TO reject_VVI historicism_NN1 absolutely_RR results_VVZ either_RR in_II an_AT1 utter_JJ particularism_NN1 or_CC in_II a_AT1 surreptitious_JJ return_NN1 of_IO historicism_NN1 in_II a_AT1 different_JJ form_NN1 ._. 
Only_RR an_AT1 understanding_NN1 that_CST recognizes_VVZ that_CST an_AT1 irresolvable_JJ tension_NN1 works_VVZ within_II the_AT historical_JJ schema_NN1 itself_PPX1 will_VM be_VBI in_II a_AT1 position_NN1 to_TO make_VVI its_APPGE contradictory_JJ claims_NN2 productive_JJ ._. 
This_DD1 possibility_NN1 is_VBZ outlined_VVN by_II Foucault_NP1 himself_PPX1 as_RG early_RR as_CSA The_AT Order_NN1 of_IO Things_NN2 ._. 
He_PPHS1 comments_VVZ :_: The_AT more_DAR History_NN1 attempts_NN2 to_TO transcend_VVI its_APPGE own_DA rootedness_NN1 in_II historicity_NN1 ,_, and_CC the_AT greater_JJR the_AT efforts_NN2 it_PPH1 makes_VVZ to_TO attain_VVI ,_, beyond_II the_AT historical_JJ relativity_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE origin_NN1 and_CC its_APPGE choices_NN2 ,_, the_AT sphere_NN1 of_IO universality_NN1 ,_, the_AT more_RGR clearly_RR it_PPH1 bears_VVZ the_AT marks_NN2 of_IO its_APPGE historical_JJ birth_NN1 ,_, and_CC the_AT more_RGR evidently_RR there_EX appears_VVZ through_II it_PPH1 the_AT history_NN1 of_IO which_DDQ it_PPH1 is_VBZ itself_PPX1 a_AT1 part_NN1 ..._... inversely_RR ,_, the_AT more_RRR it_PPH1 accepts_VVZ its_APPGE relativity_NN1 ,_, and_CC the_AT more_RGR deeply_RR it_PPH1 sinks_VVZ into_II the_AT movement_NN1 it_PPH1 shares_VVZ with_IW what_DDQ it_PPH1 is_VBZ recounting_VVG ,_, then_RT the_AT more_RRR it_PPH1 tends_VVZ to_II the_AT slenderness_NN1 of_IO the_AT narrative_NN1 ,_, and_CC all_DB the_AT positive_JJ content_NN1 it_PPH1 obtained_VVD for_IF itself_PPX1 through_II the_AT human_JJ sciences_NN2 is_VBZ dissipated._NNU (_( 371_MC )_) History_NN1 becomes_VVZ the_AT impossibility_NN1 between_II this_DD1 Scylla_NN1 and_CC Charybdis_NP1 in_II Lyotard_NP1 's_GE terms_NN2 ,_, it_PPH1 contains_VVZ within_II its_APPGE own_DA project_NN1 an_AT1 incommensurable_JJ difference_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 can_VM only_RR be_VBI described_VVN in_II31 terms_II32 of_II33 its_APPGE organization_NN1 according_II21 to_II22 an_AT1 economy_NN1 of_IO logical_JJ tensions_NN2 or_CC strictures_NN2 ,_, of_IO demands_NN2 and_CC constraints_NN2 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ ,_, as_CSA Derrida_NP1 comments_NN2 ,_, a_AT1 question_NN1 of_IO showing_VVG :_: that_DD1 history_NN1 is_VBZ impossible_JJ ,_, meaningless_JJ ,_, in_II the_AT finite_JJ totality_NN1 ,_, and_CC that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ impossible_JJ ,_, meaningless_JJ ,_, in_II the_AT positive_JJ and_CC actual_JJ infinity_NN1 :_: that_DD1 history_NN1 keeps_VVZ to_II the_AT difference_NN1 between_II totality_NN1 and_CC infinity_NN1 ._. 
Thus_RR both_RR historicism_NN1 or_CC entirely_RR differentiated_VVN histories_NN2 are_VBR in_II themselves_PPX2 impossibilities_NN2 :_: history_NN1 will_VM always_RR involve_VVI a_AT1 form_NN1 of_IO historicism_NN1 ,_, but_CCB a_AT1 historicism_NN1 that_CST can_VM not_XX be_VBI sustained_VVN ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ thus_RR a_AT1 contradictory_JJ (_( quasi_JJ )_) concept_NN1 a_AT1 phantasm_NN1 in_II which_DDQ neither_RR the_AT elements_NN2 of_IO totalization_NN1 nor_CC difference_NN1 can_VM be_VBI definitively_RR achieved_VVN or_CC dispatched_VVD ._. 
This_DD1 means_VVZ that_DD1 history_NN1 can_VM be_VBI theorized_VVN not_XX so_RR31 much_RR32 as_RR33 a_AT1 contradictory_JJ process_NN1 but_CCB as_II a_AT1 concept_NN1 that_CST must_VM enact_VVI its_APPGE own_DA contradiction_NN1 with_IW itself_PPX1 :_: '_" this_DD1 difference_NN1 is_VBZ what_DDQ is_VBZ called_VVN History_NN1 '_GE ._. 
In_II this_DD1 context_NN1 ,_, we_PPIS2 may_VM recall_VVI that_DD1 Althusser_NN1 ,_, rather_CS21 than_CS22 simply_RR criticizing_VVG the_AT notion_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 as_II a_AT1 totality_NN1 as_CSA Foucault_NP1 often_RR tended_VVD to_TO do_VDI ,_, argued_VVN for_IF the_AT rearticulation_NN1 of_IO different_JJ histories_NN2 within_II a_AT1 decentred_JJ totality_NN1 ,_, on_II the_AT assumption_NN1 that_CST history_NN1 can_VM not_XX do_VDI without_IW one_PN1 ._. 
Was_VBDZ it_PPH1 simply_RR incoherence_NN1 on_II his_APPGE part_NN1 when_CS he_PPHS1 suggested_VVD that_DD1 his_58 '_GE science_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 '_GE ,_, even_CS21 though_CS22 it_PPH1 allows_VVZ for_IF differentiated_JJ histories_NN2 ,_, still_RR demands_VVZ to_TO be_VBI considered_VVN within_II a_AT1 general_JJ concept_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ?_? 
We_PPIS2 have_VH0 seen_VVN the_AT ways_NN2 in_II which_DDQ Sartre_NP1 's_GE Critique_NN1 shows_VVZ how_RRQ totalization_NN1 can_VM not_XX work_VVI without_IW a_AT1 movement_NN1 of_IO self-transcendence_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 repeated_JJ interpolation_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 excess_NN1 beyond_II the_AT totality_NN1 which_DDQ paradoxically_RR then_RT means_VVZ that_CST the_AT totality_NN1 can_VM no_RR21 longer_RR22 be_VBI a_AT1 totality_NN1 ._. 
Although_CS Sartre_NP1 's_GE inability_NN1 to_TO effect_VVI self-totalization_NN1 is_VBZ often_RR presented_VVN as_II a_AT1 failure_NN1 ,_, the_AT movement_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 that_CST he_PPHS1 describes_VVZ is_VBZ increasingly_RR enacted_VVN through_II his_APPGE own_DA writing_NN1 ._. 
Such_DA a_AT1 shift_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX immediately_RR discernible_JJ in_II Foucault_NP1 ._. 
His_APPGE Deleuzian_JJ notion_NN1 of_IO the_AT phantasmatic_JJ event_NN1 constituted_VVD a_AT1 brief_JJ attempt_NN1 to_TO reformulate_VVI the_AT relation_NN1 of_IO the_AT particular_JJ to_II the_AT general_NN1 as_II a_AT1 problem_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB he_PPHS1 made_VVD little_DA1 effort_NN1 to_TO develop_VVI this_DD1 outside_II his_APPGE own_DA definitions_NN2 of_IO the_AT genealogical_JJ method_NN1 ,_, while_CS his_APPGE shift_NN1 into_II the_AT problematics_NN1 of_IO power_NN1 seemed_VVD to_TO lead_VVI him_PPHO1 into_II a_AT1 labyrinth_NN1 from_II which_DDQ it_PPH1 was_VBDZ virtually_RR impossible_JJ to_TO extract_VVI himself_PPX1 ._. 
The_AT philosophy_NN1 of_IO the_AT phantasm_NN1 may_VM ,_, however_RR ,_, help_VVI us_PPIO2 to_TO do_VDI justice_NN1 to_II the_AT event_NN1 of_IO Foucault_NP1 himself_PPX1 ._. 
One_MC1 of_IO the_AT oddities_NN2 of_IO Foucault_NP1 's_GE work_NN1 is_VBZ that_CST it_PPH1 seems_VVZ riven_VVN by_II an_AT1 internal_JJ tension_NN1 for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, as_CSA peter_NP1 Dews_NN2 notes_NN2 ,_, while_CS on_II the_AT one_MC1 hand_NN1 Foucault_NN1 lays_VVZ claims_NN2 to_II a_AT1 form_NN1 of_IO objectivity_NN1 in_II his_APPGE archaeology_NN1 ,_, and_CC eschews_VVZ interpretation_NN1 in_II31 favour_II32 of_II33 '_GE intelligibility_NN1 '_GE ,_, on_II the_AT other_JJ hand_NN1 throughout_II his_APPGE life_NN1 he_PPHS1 was_VBDZ also_RR prone_JJ to_TO endorse_VVI a_AT1 Nietzschean_JJ insistence_NN1 on_II the_AT interminability_NN1 of_IO interpretation_NN1 ._. 
For_IF Dews_NN2 this_DD1 equivocation_NN1 over_II the_AT epistemological_JJ status_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE own_DA discourse_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 sign_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 uncontrollable_JJ oscillation_NN1 :_: '_GE the_AT shifting_JJ perspectives_NN2 of_IO Foucault_NP1 's_GE work_NN1 '_GE ,_, he_PPHS1 writes_VVZ ,_, '_" do_VD0 powerfully_RR illuminate_VVI ,_, but_CCB at_II the_AT same_DA time_NNT1 fall_NN1 victim_NN1 to_II ,_, the_AT contradictory_JJ processes_NN2 which_DDQ they_PPHS2 address_NN1 '_GE ._. 
But_CCB such_DA a_AT1 self-undermining_NN1 of_IO the_AT epistemological_JJ status_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE own_DA work_NN1 is_VBZ also_RR characteristic_JJ of_IO Lacan_NN1 ,_, and_CC of_IO Freud_NP1 indeed_RR ,_, Dews_NN2 argues_VVZ that_CST this_DD1 constitutes_VVZ Freud_NP1 's_GE greatest_JJT strength_NN1 ._. 
We_PPIS2 might_VM therefore_RR wonder_VVI whether_CSW its_APPGE appearance_NN1 in_II Foucault_NP1 ,_, far_RR from_II being_VBG the_AT result_NN1 of_IO theoretical_JJ ineptitude_NN1 ,_, does_VDZ not_XX involve_VVI simulacra_NN1 ,_, or_CC ghostly_JJ bad_JJ copies_NN2 ,_, similarly_RR designed_VVN to_TO undermine_VVI the_AT claims_NN2 of_IO theoretical_JJ mastery_NN1 ,_, and_CC to_TO produce_VVI in_II his_APPGE texts_NN2 surface-effects_NN2 of_IO the_AT kind_NN1 of_IO heterogeneity_NN1 we_PPIS2 might_VM expect_VVI from_II someone_PN1 who_PNQS had_VHD contested_VVN the_AT unifying_JJ function_NN1 of_IO '_GE the_AT author_NN1 '_GE ._. 
With_II31 respect_II32 to_II33 history_NN1 ,_, the_AT vacillations_NN2 of_IO Foucault_NP1 's_GE writing_NN1 enact_VV0 the_AT impossibility_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE simultaneous_JJ finitude_NN1 and_CC infinitude_NN1 ,_, the_AT irresolvable_JJ conflict_NN1 between_II history_NN1 as_CSA meaning_NN1 and_CC history_NN1 as_CSA difference_NN1 ,_, between_II history_NN1 as_II a_AT1 teleology_NN1 and_CC eschatology_NN1 and_CC history_NN1 as_II the_AT event_NN1 ,_, as_CSA finitude_NN1 and_CC mortality_NN1 ._. 
Here_RL we_PPIS2 once_RR21 more_RR22 encounter_VV0 the_AT recognition_NN1 that_CST at_II a_AT1 conceptual_JJ level_NN1 the_AT idea_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 can_VM not_XX be_VBI taken_VVN further_RRR :_: rather_RR it_PPH1 can_VM only_RR be_VBI addressed_VVN through_II a_AT1 tension_NN1 in_II the_AT writing_NN1 itself_PPX1 ._. 
The_AT early_JJ opposition_NN1 between_II writing_NN1 and_CC history_NN1 which_DDQ enabled_VVD a_AT1 critique_NN1 from_II an_AT1 outer_JJ limit_NN1 has_VHZ thus_RR been_VBN replaced_VVN by_II a_AT1 dissension_NN1 within_II Foucault_NP1 's_GE own_DA discursive_JJ practice_NN1 ._. 
Instead_II21 of_II22 locating_VVG the_AT other_JJ elsewhere_RL in_II the_AT transgressive_JJ writing_NN1 of_IO literature_NN1 or_CC madness_NN1 ,_, Foucault_VV0 himself_PPX1 becomes_VVZ plato_06 's_GE banished_JJ poet_NN1 ,_, and_CC enacts_VVZ in_II his_APPGE language_NN1 a_AT1 supplementary_JJ simulacrum_NN1 of_IO the_AT delirium_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ._. 
As_CSA Maurice_NP1 Blanchot_NP1 has_VHZ put_VVN it_PPH1 :_: '_GE And_CC were_VBDR not_XX his_APPGE own_DA principles_NN2 more_RGR complex_JJ than_CSN his_APPGE official_JJ discourse_NN1 ,_, with_IW its_APPGE striking_JJ formulations_NN2 ,_, led_VVD one_PN1 to_TO think_VVI ?_? 
'_GE VI_MC HISTORY_NN1 AS_CSA POWER_NN1 In_II later_JJR work_NN1 Foucault_NN1 veers_VVZ away_II21 from_II22 his_APPGE most_RGT radical_JJ philosophical_JJ insights_NN2 towards_II an_AT1 analysis_NN1 of_IO discursive_JJ and_CC extra-discursive_JJ systems_NN2 of_IO domination_NN1 and_CC exploitation_NN1 ,_, with_IW increasing_JJ focus_NN1 on_II the_AT apparently_RR more_RGR political_JJ question_NN1 of_IO power_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB perhaps_RR this_DD1 shift_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX so_RG distinct_JJ :_: for_IF the_AT interaction_NN1 of_IO power_NN1 and_CC resistance_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ mimes_VVZ the_AT mutual_JJ contamination_NN1 and_CC transmutation_NN1 of_IO Freud_NP1 's_GE death-drive_NN1 and_CC pleasure_NN1 principle_NN1 ,_, also_RR operates_VVZ is_VBZ a_AT1 simulacrum_NN1 of_IO the_AT ungraspable_JJ ,_, vacillating_VVG manoeuvres_NN2 of_IO Foucault_NP1 's_GE formulations_NN2 of_IO history_NN1 ._. 
Whereas_CS Foucault_NP1 was_VBDZ inclined_JJ to_TO remark_VVI that_CST in_II retrospect_NN1 he_PPHS1 considered_VVD that_CST all_DB his_APPGE work_NN1 had_VHD been_VBN about_II power_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 seems_VVZ almost_RR equally_RR possible_JJ that_CST his_APPGE analyses_NN2 of_IO power_NN1 constitute_VV0 a_AT1 continuing_JJ meditation_NN1 on_II the_AT phantasm_NN1 ._. 
Although_CS in_II no_AT sense_NN1 a_AT1 general_JJ theory_NN1 ,_, Foucault_NP1 's_GE notion_NN1 of_IO power_NN1 reformulates_VVZ the_AT problem_NN1 of_IO agency_NN1 and_CC determinism_NN1 which_DDQ had_VHD beset_VVN Sartre_NP1 and_CC many_DA2 others_NN2 by_II focusing_VVG on_II the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO making_VVG intelligible_JJ the_AT strategies_NN2 and_CC techniques_NN2 of_IO local_JJ operations_NN2 of_IO power_NN1 without_IW relying_VVG on_II the_AT dialectic_NN1 of_IO ideology_NN1 and_CC the_AT consciousness_NN1 of_IO subjects_NN2 ,_, or_CC on_II their_APPGE corollary_NN1 ,_, the_AT assumption_NN1 that_CST power_NN1 operates_VVZ globally_RR and_CC homogeneously_RR ._. 
The_AT absence_NN1 of_IO the_AT category_NN1 of_IO consciousness_NN1 inevitably_RR plays_VVZ down_RP the_AT role_NN1 of_IO individual_JJ subjects_NN2 and_CC thus_RR of_IO individual_JJ agency_NN1 and_CC resistance_NN1 as_II a_AT1 result_NN1 of_IO specific_JJ acts_NN2 of_IO will_NN1 ._. 
If_CS this_DD1 causes_VVZ difficulties_NN2 for_IF some_DD ,_, Foucault_NP1 's_GE scepticism_NN1 with_II31 regard_II32 to_II33 the_AT tendency_NN1 to_TO inflate_VVI the_AT effect_NN1 of_IO individual_JJ agency_NN1 can_VM only_RR be_VBI compared_VVN to_II the_AT position_NN1 of_IO many_DA2 Marxisms_NN2 in_II which_DDQ resistance_NN1 and_CC revolution_NN1 are_VBR hardly_RR the_AT privilege_NN1 of_IO the_AT individual_NN1 as_II such_DA ,_, but_CCB rather_RR of_IO collective_JJ class_NN1 action_NN1 ._. 
Those_DD2 who_PNQS forget_VV0 the_AT virtues_NN2 of_IO solidarity_NN1 in_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO protest_VVI against_II the_AT downgrading_NN1 of_IO individual_JJ agency_NN1 might_VM recall_VVI that_CST it_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN intellectuals_NN2 who_PNQS have_VH0 been_VBN most_RGT prone_JJ to_TO inflate_VVI the_AT significance_NN1 of_IO individuals_NN2 particularly_RR intellectuals_NN2 to_II the_AT same_DA degree_NN1 that_CST their_APPGE theories_NN2 propose_VV0 universal_JJ categories_NN2 and_CC claim_VV0 universal_JJ effects_NN2 ._. 
Moreover_RR the_AT exclusive_JJ focus_NN1 on_II '_GE resistance_NN1 '_GE as_II a_AT1 privileged_JJ political_JJ category_NN1 is_VBZ itself_PPX1 open_VV0 to_TO question_VVI ._. 
As_CSA with_IW his_APPGE genealogical_JJ history_NN1 ,_, Foucault_NP1 's_GE meditations_NN2 on_II power_NN1 are_VBR not_XX themselves_PPX2 without_IW problems_NN2 ,_, but_CCB reactions_NN2 to_II them_PPHO2 can_VM also_RR be_VBI too_RG hastily_RR dismissive_JJ ,_, often_RR because_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ assumed_VVN that_CST they_PPHS2 are_VBR proposed_VVN as_II a_AT1 general_JJ theory_NN1 ._. 
For_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, after_CS the_AT History_NN1 of_IO Sexuality_NN1 much_RR has_VHZ been_VBN made_VVN of_IO Foucault_NP1 's_GE analysis_NN1 of_IO power_NN1 as_II a_AT1 form_NN1 of_IO totalizing_VVG paranoia_NN1 ;_; but_CCB the_AT analyses_NN2 in_II that_DD1 book_NN1 ,_, of_IO ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, the_AT shift_NN1 from_II the_AT Catholic_JJ confession_NN1 box_NN1 to_II the_AT confessional_NN1 psychoanalytic_JJ couch_NN1 ,_, are_VBR both_RR culturally_RR and_CC historically_RR specific_JJ ,_, and_CC Foucault_NP1 's_GE remarks_NN2 about_II them_PPHO2 need_VV0 to_TO be_VBI put_VVN in_II the_AT same_DA perspective_NN1 ._. 
After_II all_DB ,_, if_CS '_GE the_AT system_NN1 '_GE really_RR was_VBDZ bent_VVN upon_II the_AT form_NN1 of_IO totalizing_VVG control_NN1 that_CST according_II21 to_II22 Foucault_NP1 psychoanalysis_NN1 ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, enables_VVZ ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ worth_II recalling_VVG that_DD1 psychoanalysis_NN1 has_VHZ never_RR been_VBN adopted_VVN by_II the_AT state_NN1 as_CSA such_DA and_CC that_CST its_APPGE activities_NN2 remain_VV0 confined_VVN to_II a_AT1 few_DA2 very_RG limited_JJ districts_NN2 in_II a_AT1 handful_NN1 of_IO prosperous_JJ cities_NN2 round_II the_AT world_NN1 ._. 
Similarly_RR ,_, those_DD2 who_PNQS claim_VV0 that_CST Foucault_NP1 removes_VVZ the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO resistance_NN1 as_CSA such_DA miss_VV0 the_AT point_NN1 :_: all_DB that_CST he_PPHS1 downgrades_VVZ is_VBZ a_AT1 theory_NN1 of_IO resistance_NN1 centred_VVN on_II the_AT individual_JJ subject_NN1 as_CSA sovereign_JJ agent_NN1 ._. 
He_PPHS1 argues_VVZ that_CST to_TO focus_VVI analysis_NN1 in_II this_DD1 way_NN1 neglects_VVZ the_AT disciplinary_JJ forms_NN2 and_CC technologies_NN2 through_II which_DDQ power_NN1 operates_VVZ ._. 
The_AT claim_NN1 for_IF a_AT1 straightforward_JJ oppositional_JJ kind_NN1 of_IO resistance_NN1 also_RR assumes_VVZ that_CST subjects_NN2 can_VM resist_VVI from_II a_AT1 position_NN1 outside_II the_AT operations_NN2 of_IO power_NN1 ,_, according_II21 to_II22 the_AT dominant_JJ inside/outside_JJ model_NN1 of_IO conventional_JJ politics_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ the_AT context_NN1 in_II which_DDQ to_TO place_VVI Foucault_NP1 's_GE own_DA recognition_NN1 after_II Derrida_NP1 's_GE critique_NN1 that_CST he_PPHS1 could_VM no_RR21 longer_RR22 postulate_VVI madness_NN1 or_CC the_AT other_JJ as_CSA outside_RL ,_, after_II which_DDQ he_PPHS1 maintained_VVD that_CST the_AT other_NN1 is_VBZ also_RR always_RR inside_RL ;_; he_PPHS1 formulates_VVZ the_AT structures_NN2 of_IO power_NN1 in_II exactly_RR the_AT same_DA way_NN1 ,_, so_CS21 that_CS22 the_AT forces_NN2 of_IO domination_NN1 and_CC resistance_NN1 are_VBR caught_VVN up_RP ,_, sometimes_RT indistinguishably_RR ,_, within_II each_PPX221 other_PPX222 ._. 
Acts_NN2 of_IO resistance_NN1 may_VM of_RR21 course_RR22 continue_VVI to_TO be_VBI initiated_VVN through_II individual_JJ acts_NN2 of_IO will_NN1 ,_, but_CCB as_II21 for_II22 Sartre_NP1 there_EX is_VBZ no_AT guarantee_NN1 that_CST they_PPHS2 will_VM produce_VVI intended_JJ effects_NN2 ._. 
An_AT1 awareness_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 structure_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX mean_VVI that_DD1 strategic_JJ intervention_NN1 is_VBZ either_RR useless_JJ or_CC impossible_JJ ;_; but_CCB it_PPH1 does_VDZ mean_VVI that_DD1 analysis_NN1 of_IO how_RRQ resistance_NN1 actually_RR operates_VVZ ,_, in_II what_DDQ conditions_VVZ it_PPH1 succeeds_VVZ or_CC fails_VVZ ,_, needs_VVZ an_AT1 altogether_RR more_RGR complex_JJ model_NN1 ._. 
Foucault_NP1 's_GE account_NN1 of_IO power_NN1 is_VBZ thus_RR difficult_JJ to_II the_AT degree_NN1 to_II which_DDQ he_PPHS1 argues_VVZ that_CST the_AT exercise_NN1 and_CC resistance_NN1 of_IO power_NN1 work_NN1 in_II a_AT1 disruptive_JJ rather_II21 than_II22 a_AT1 dialectical_JJ relation_NN1 to_II each_PPX221 other_PPX222 ,_, suggesting_VVG that_DD1 '_VBZ points_NN2 of_IO resistance_NN1 are_VBR present_JJ everywhere_RL in_II the_AT power_NN1 network_NN1 '_GE ._. 
Where_CS there_EX is_VBZ power_NN1 ,_, there_EX is_VBZ resistance_NN1 :_: contrary_II21 to_II22 what_DDQ is_VBZ often_RR assumed_VVN ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ the_AT absence_NN1 of_IO resistance_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ impossible._NNU power_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 two-way_JJ process_NN1 ._. 
Just_RR as_CSA the_AT exercise_NN1 of_IO power_NN1 is_VBZ heterogeneous_JJ ,_, so_RR is_VBZ resistance_NN1 ;_; Foucault_NP1 's_GE point_NN1 is_VBZ simply_RR that_DD1 '_VBZ there_EX is_VBZ no_AT single_JJ locus_NN1 of_IO great_JJ Refusal_NN1 ,_, no_AT soul_NN1 of_IO revolt_NN1 ,_, source_NN1 of_IO all_DB rebellions_NN2 ,_, or_CC pure_JJ law_NN1 of_IO the_AT revolutionary_JJ '_GE ._. 
Resistance_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX operate_VVI outside_JJ power_NN1 ,_, nor_CC is_VBZ it_PPH1 necessarily_RR produced_VVN oppositionally_RR :_: it_PPH1 is_VBZ imbricated_VVN within_II it_PPH1 ,_, the_AT irregular_JJ term_NN1 that_CST consistently_RR disturbs_VVZ it_PPH1 ,_, rebounds_VVZ upon_II it_PPH1 ,_, and_CC which_DDQ on_II occasions_NN2 can_VM be_VBI manipulated_VVN so_BCL21 as_BCL22 to_TO rupture_VVI it_PPH1 altogether_RR :_: Just_RR as_CSA the_AT network_NN1 of_IO power_NN1 relations_NN2 ends_VVZ by_II forming_VVG a_AT1 dense_JJ web_NN1 that_CST passes_VVZ through_II apparatuses_NN2 and_CC institutions_NN2 ,_, without_IW being_VBG exactly_RR localized_VVN in_II them_PPHO2 ,_, so_RR too_RG the_AT swarm_NN1 of_IO points_NN2 of_IO resistance_NN1 traverses_VVZ social_JJ stratifications_NN2 and_CC individual_JJ unities_NN2 ._. 
And_CC it_PPH1 is_VBZ doubtless_RR the_AT strategic_JJ codification_NN1 of_IO these_DD2 points_NN2 of_IO resistance_NN1 that_CST makes_VVZ a_AT1 revolution_NN1 possible_JJ ,_, somewhat_RR similar_JJ to_II the_AT way_NN1 in_II which_DDQ the_AT state_NN1 relies_VVZ on_II the_AT institutional_JJ integration_NN1 of_IO power_NN1 relationships_NN2 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ in_II this_DD1 way_NN1 that_CST Foucault_NP1 can_VM return_VVI to_II the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO doing_VDG historical_JJ work_NN1 that_CST has_VHZ political_JJ force_NN1 through_II his_APPGE notion_NN1 of_IO genealogy_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ means_VVZ ,_, as_CSA he_PPHS1 puts_VVZ it_PPH1 ,_, '_" that_CST I_PPIS1 begin_VV0 my_APPGE analysis_NN1 from_II a_AT1 question_NN1 posed_VVN in_II the_AT present_NN1 '_GE ._. 
The_AT question_NN1 enables_VVZ the_AT tactical_JJ use_NN1 of_IO historical_JJ knowledge_NN1 in_II contemporary_JJ political_JJ situations_NN2 which_DDQ necessitate_VV0 the_AT posing_NN1 of_IO the_AT question_NN1 with_IW which_DDQ genealogy_NN1 begins_VVZ ._. 
Such_DA politics_NN1 stress_NN1 the_AT local_JJ or_CC the_AT specific_JJ without_IW assuming_VVG that_CST they_PPHS2 constitute_VV0 the_AT starting_NN1 point_NN1 for_IF a_AT1 global_JJ hegemony_NN1 into_II which_DDQ they_PPHS2 will_VM be_VBI subsumed_VVN ._. 
Foucault_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX aim_VVI to_TO produce_VVI '_GE a_AT1 '_GE politics_NN1 any_DD more_DAR than_CSN '_GE a_AT1 '_GE history_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ this_DD1 factor_NN1 which_DDQ ,_, perhaps_RR above_II all_DB ,_, has_VHZ enabled_VVN the_AT critical_JJ use_NN1 of_IO Foucault_NP1 's_GE analyses_NN2 of_IO power_NN1 in_II demarcated_JJ areas_NN2 of_IO analysis_NN1 ._. 
Ironically_RR ,_, Foucault_NP1 's_GE most_RGT problematic_JJ '_GE theory_NN1 '_GE has_VHZ generated_VVN the_AT most_RGT successful_JJ and_CC probing_JJ historical_JJ work_NN1 among_II his_APPGE followers_NN2 ._. 
VII_MC CODA_NN1 :_: THE_AT NEW_JJ HISTORICISM_NN1 The_AT relation_NN1 of_IO Foucault_NP1 's_GE politics_NN1 to_II history_NN1 leads_VVZ to_II the_AT question_NN1 of_IO the_AT tactical_JJ use_NN1 of_IO Foucault_NP1 himself_PPX1 in_II current_JJ forms_NN2 of_IO criticism_NN1 ;_; in_II31 addition_II32 to_II33 his_APPGE extensive_JJ use_NN1 by_II historians_NN2 and_CC sociologists_NN2 ,_, he_PPHS1 is_VBZ also_RR associated_VVN with_IW those_DD2 movements_NN2 that_CST have_VH0 become_VVN known_VVN as_98 '_GE new_JJ historicism_NN1 '_GE and_CC '_GE cultural_JJ materialism_NN1 '_GE ._. 
The_AT former_DA is_VBZ identified_VVN closely_RR with_IW Foucault_NP1 ,_, while_CS the_AT latter_DA owes_VVZ its_APPGE allegiance_NN1 to_II Raymond_NP1 Williams_NP1 ,_, and_CC really_RR only_JJ amounts_NN2 to_II a_AT1 way_NN1 of_IO describing_VVG British_JJ ex-Marxists_NN2 ._. 
New_JJ historicism_NN1 is_VBZ most_RGT concerned_JJ with_IW the_AT late_JJ Foucault_NN1 ,_, in_RR21 particular_RR22 with_IW representations_NN2 and_CC mechanisms_NN2 of_IO power_NN1 ,_, the_AT means_NN through_II which_DDQ cultural_JJ artefacts_NN2 can_VM be_VBI shown_VVN to_TO be_VBI not_XX passive_JJ reflectors_NN2 of_IO the_AT history_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE time_NNT1 but_CCB active_JJ producers_NN2 of_IO it_PPH1 ._. 
This_DD1 charting_NN1 of_IO the_AT circulating_JJ relations_NN2 between_II aesthetic_JJ and_CC other_JJ forms_NN2 of_IO production_NN1 works_VVZ best_RRT in_II those_DD2 historical_JJ periods_NN2 ,_, such_II21 as_II22 the_AT Renaissance_NN1 ,_, where_CS there_EX was_VBDZ no_AT modern_JJ concept_NN1 of_IO Literature_NN1 ,_, thus_RR allowing_VVG literary_JJ texts_NN2 to_TO be_VBI mapped_VVN against_II the_AT political_JJ and_CC other_JJ discourses_NN2 of_IO which_DDQ they_PPHS2 formed_VVD a_AT1 part_NN1 ._. 
New_JJ historicism_NN1 emphasizes_VVZ the_AT way_NN1 in_II which_DDQ certain_JJ rituals_NN2 and_CC practices_NN2 ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 of_IO kingship_NN1 ,_, are_VBR equally_RR a_AT1 part_NN1 of_IO the_AT processes_NN2 and_CC representation_NN1 of_IO power_NN1 whether_CSW at_II a_AT1 beheading_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 masque_NN1 or_CC in_II a_AT1 poem_NN1 ._. 
At_II the_AT same_DA time_NNT1 ,_, it_PPH1 can_VM also_RR bring_VVI out_RP the_AT complex_JJ ways_NN2 in_II which_DDQ such_DA forms_NN2 of_IO power_NN1 also_RR produce_VV0 their_APPGE own_DA forms_NN2 of_IO resistance_NN1 ;_; as_CSA critics_NN2 like_II Stephen_NP1 Greenblatt_NP1 demonstrate_VV0 ,_, these_DD2 are_VBR not_XX separable_JJ processes_NN2 but_CCB are_VBR simultaneous_JJ effects_NN2 of_IO power_NN1 ._. 
The_AT illustration_NN1 of_IO such_DA a_AT1 double_JJ logic_NN1 working_VVG at_II a_AT1 textual_JJ level_NN1 often_RR comes_VVZ to_TO seem_VVI remarkably_RR close_RR to_II a_AT1 deconstructive_JJ analysis_NN1 :_: in_II the_AT same_DA way_NN1 as_CSA Derrida_NP1 or_CC de_NP1 Man_NN1 could_VM be_VBI said_VVN to_TO be_VBI deconstructing_VVG received_JJ readings_NN2 that_CST have_VH0 institutional_JJ purchase_NN1 ,_, so_CS the_AT new_JJ historicists_NN2 shift_VV0 our_APPGE understanding_NN1 of_IO institutionalized_JJ historical_JJ accounts_NN2 ._. 
However_RR ,_, the_AT very_RG historical_JJ focus_NN1 poses_VVZ the_AT problem_NN1 of_IO agency_NN1 and_CC containment_NN1 in_II a_AT1 more_RGR immediate_JJ way_NN1 that_CST demonstrates_VVZ some_DD of_IO the_AT dilemmas_NN2 that_CST follow_VV0 from_II Foucault_NP1 's_GE genealogical_JJ history_NN1 ._. 
The_AT real_JJ difficulty_NN1 ,_, as_CSA Greenblatt_NP1 shows_VVZ ,_, is_VBZ what_DDQ status_NN1 can_VM be_VBI accorded_VVN the_AT category_NN1 of_IO subversion_NN1 or_CC resistance_NN1 :_: what_DDQ is_VBZ the_AT historical_JJ status_NN1 of_IO the_AT '_GE subversive_JJ ,_, elements_NN2 of_IO a_AT1 text_NN1 ?_? 
If_CS the_AT process_NN1 of_IO the_AT construction_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 can_VM be_VBI shown_VVN to_TO work_VVI against_II itself_PPX1 ,_, this_DD1 can_VM operate_VVI because_CS the_AT ideas_NN2 of_IO the_AT dominant_JJ order_NN1 are_VBR not_XX in_II fact_NN1 threatened_VVN by_II alternatives_NN2 which_DDQ ,_, with_IW hindsight_NN1 ,_, may_VM appear_VVI radical_NN1 to_II us_PPIO2 now_RT ._. 
As_II the_AT cultural_JJ materialists_NN2 concede_VV0 ,_, subversive_JJ thoughts_NN2 are_VBR not_XX subversive_JJ until_CS they_PPHS2 become_VV0 a_AT1 practice_NN1 ._. 
Can_VM they_PPHS2 be_VBI shown_VVN to_TO have_VHI had_VHN historical_JJ effects_NN2 ?_? 
From_II the_AT point_NN1 of_IO view_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 radical_JJ politics_NN1 ,_, the_AT onus_NN1 on_II the_AT critic_NN1 ,_, therefore_RR ,_, is_VBZ to_TO show_VVI the_AT ways_NN2 in_II which_DDQ such_DA subversions_NN2 can_VM be_VBI shown_VVN to_TO have_VHI produced_VVN specific_JJ instances_NN2 of_IO change_NN1 ._. 
Correspondingly_RR ,_, as_CSA Greenblatt_NP1 argues_VVZ ,_, Renaissance_NN1 ideas_NN2 which_DDQ might_VM be_VBI subversive_JJ today_RT are_VBR ignored_VVN in_II31 favour_II32 of_II33 '_GE radical_NN1 '_GE ideas_NN2 which_DDQ seem_VV0 to_TO echo_VVI our_APPGE own_DA ._. 
Both_DB2 groups_NN2 follow_VV0 Foucault_NN1 to_II the_AT extent_NN1 that_CST they_PPHS2 neither_RR propose_VV0 ,_, nor_CC utilize_VV0 ,_, a_AT1 general_JJ theory_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 as_II such_DA ;_; but_CCB unlike_JJ Foucault_NN1 they_PPHS2 simply_RR tend_VV0 to_TO shelve_VVI the_AT whole_JJ problem_NN1 so_BCL21 as_BCL22 to_TO avoid_VVI its_APPGE theoretical_JJ difficulties_NN2 ._. 
So_RR ,_, despite_II the_AT Lukcsian_JJ resonance_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE name_NN1 ,_, new_JJ historicism_NN1 abandons_VVZ both_RR the_AT notion_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 as_II a_AT1 readable_JJ background_NN1 to_II literary_JJ texts_NN2 ,_, and_CC the_AT Marxist_JJ dependency_NN1 on_II reflection_NN1 ,_, in_II its_APPGE effort_NN1 to_TO recontextualize_VVI literary_JJ texts_NN2 in_II a_AT1 more_RGR immediate_JJ way_NN1 with_IW other_JJ forms_NN2 of_IO social_JJ production_NN1 ._. 
For_IF their_APPGE part_NN1 ,_, the_AT British_JJ cultural_JJ materialists_NN2 quickly_RR adopted_VVN a_AT1 name_NN1 which_DDQ tactfully_RR removes_VVZ the_AT suggestion_NN1 of_IO Marxism_NN1 as_II such_DA ._. 
In_II the_AT context_NN1 of_IO the_AT present_JJ discussion_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 ,_, moreover_RR ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ highly_RR significant_JJ that_CST traditional_JJ '_GE historical_JJ materialism_NN1 '_GE has_VHZ been_VBN jettisoned_VVN in_II31 favour_II32 of_II33 the_AT anthropological_JJ '_GE cultural_JJ materialism_NN1 '_GE ._. 
The_AT cultural_JJ materialists_NN2 abandon_VV0 the_AT traditional_JJ Marxist_JJ use_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 as_II a_AT1 ground_NN1 for_IF truth_NN1 in_II31 favour_II32 of_II33 bringing_VVG history_NN1 into_II the_AT present_JJ day_NNT1 in_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO intervene_VVI in_II their_APPGE own_DA institutional_JJ and_CC academic_JJ political_JJ context_NN1 ._. 
In_II this_DD1 case_NN1 it_PPH1 becomes_VVZ less_RRR a_AT1 matter_NN1 of_IO addressing_VVG contemporary_JJ political_JJ problems_NN2 than_CSN of_IO resisting_VVG institutional_JJ power_NN1 ,_, namely_REX those_DD2 critical_JJ readings_NN2 which_DDQ have_VH0 recently_RR claimed_VVN cultural_JJ hegemony_NN1 ,_, and_CC of_IO providing_VVG instead_RR alternative_JJ accounts_NN2 which_DDQ insist_VV0 on_II heterogeneity_NN1 and_CC resistance_NN1 in_II historical_JJ texts_NN2 ._. 
An_AT1 identification_NN1 is_VBZ then_RT implicitly_RR or_CC explicitly_RR made_VVN with_IW parallel_JJ forms_NN2 of_IO political_JJ struggle_NN1 in_II our_APPGE own_DA day_NNT1 ._. 
In_II other_JJ words_NN2 ,_, where_RRQ yesterday_RT 's_GE historian_NN1 looked_VVN for_IF the_AT history_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 oppressed_JJ working_JJ class_NN1 ,_, today_RT 's_GE historian_NN1 looks_VVZ for_IF marginalized_JJ groups_NN2 ,_, and_CC those_DD2 who_PNQS have_VH0 transgressed_VVN social_JJ norms_NN2 ._. 
Whether_CSW they_PPHS2 actually_RR were_VBDR subversive_JJ becomes_VVZ irrelevant_JJ to_II the_AT extent_NN1 that_CST they_PPHS2 can_VM now_RT be_VBI retrieved_VVN to_TO offer_VVI a_AT1 potential_JJ that_CST has_VHZ a_AT1 contemporary_JJ ,_, that_DD1 is_VBZ twentieth-century_JJ ,_, political_JJ relevance_NN1 ._. 
To_II this_DD1 extent_NN1 we_PPIS2 could_VM say_VVI that_CST the_AT cultural_JJ materialists_NN2 re-assert_VV0 a_AT1 form_NN1 of_IO reflection_NN1 theory_NN1 ,_, where_CS history_NN1 has_VHZ become_VVN a_AT1 mirror_NN1 in_II which_DDQ contemporary_JJ political_JJ priorities_NN2 have_VH0 been_VBN substituted_VVN for_IF the_AT former_DA certain_JJ ground_NN1 of_IO Marxist_JJ analysis_NN1 ._. 
The_AT cultural_JJ materialists_NN2 are_VBR inclined_JJ to_TO separate_VVI the_AT self-contradictory_JJ differences_NN2 isolated_VVN by_II the_AT new_JJ historicists_NN2 into_II a_AT1 more_RGR conventional_JJ political_JJ paradigm_NN1 of_IO opposing_JJ classes_NN2 ,_, of_IO hegemony_NN1 and_CC subversion_NN1 ._. 
Similarly_RR ,_, though_CS Foucault_NP1 is_VBZ often_RR invoked_VVN ,_, there_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 marked_JJ tendency_NN1 to_TO continue_VVI to_TO utilize_VVI theoretical_JJ categories_NN2 such_II21 as_II22 ideology_NN1 ,_, consciousness_NN1 and_CC the_AT subject_NN1 ._. 
Here_RL it_PPH1 is_VBZ salutary_JJ to_TO recall_VVI Foucault_NP1 's_GE scepticism_NN1 with_II31 regard_II32 to_II33 the_AT '_GE perilous_JJ ease_NN1 '_GE with_IW which_DDQ politics_NN1 quickly_RR assumes_VVZ positions_NN2 that_CST provide_VV0 intellectual_JJ guarantees_NN2 rather_II21 than_II22 specific_JJ analyses_NN2 of_IO particular_JJ relations_NN2 or_CC transformations_NN2 ;_; he_PPHS1 reacts_VVZ in_II the_AT same_DA way_NN1 to_II political_JJ analogies_NN2 ,_, and_CC correspondences_NN2 ,_, or_CC to_II hasty_JJ links_NN2 with_IW current_JJ political_JJ practices_NN2 ._. 
To_II the_AT last_MD ,_, Foucault_VV0 himself_PPX1 remained_VVD suspicious_JJ of_IO any_DD '_GE progressive_JJ politics_NN1 ,_, if_CS that_DD1 meant_VVD that_CST it_PPH1 continued_VVD to_TO be_VBI linked_VVN to_II a_AT1 (_( hidden_VVN )_) meaning_NN1 ,_, origin_NN1 ,_, or_CC the_AT subject_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB if_CS the_AT cultural_JJ materialists_NN2 ,_, unlike_II the_AT more_RGR fastidious_JJ new_JJ historicists_NN2 ,_, cheerfully_RR ignore_VV0 the_AT theoretical_JJ consequences_NN2 of_IO Foucault_NP1 's_GE work_NN1 for_IF many_DA2 Marxist_JJ concepts_NN2 ,_, in_II other_JJ ways_NN2 they_PPHS2 are_VBR closer_JJR to_II him_PPHO1 insofar_CS21 as_CS22 they_PPHS2 make_VV0 clear_JJ in_II their_APPGE work_NN1 their_APPGE own_DA political_JJ priorities_NN2 and_CC commitments_NN2 ._. 
Nevertheless_RR it_PPH1 is_VBZ worth_II recalling_VVG that_CST Foucault_VV0 never_RR starts_VVZ at_II the_AT political_JJ ,_, but_CCB rather_RR begins_VVZ with_IW a_AT1 contemporary_JJ problem_NN1 and_CC then_RT addresses_VVZ questions_NN2 to_II politics_NN1 about_II it_PPH1 ._. 
He_PPHS1 argues_VVZ that_CST intellectual_JJ work_NN1 need_VM not_XX always_RR be_VBI measured_VVN against_II immediate_JJ political_JJ ends_NN2 ;_; rather_RR the_AT question_NN1 to_TO ask_VVI is_VBZ what_DDQ project_NN1 is_VBZ it_PPH1 undertaking_VVG ,_, what_DDQ problem_NN1 is_VBZ it_PPH1 analysing_VVG ?_? 
It_PPH1 should_VM always_RR be_VBI possible_JJ for_IF the_AT intellectual_JJ to_TO justify_VVI and_CC to_TO show_VVI the_AT grounds_NN2 on_II which_DDQ any_DD particular_JJ activity_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN constituted_VVN ._. 
At_II the_AT same_DA time_NNT1 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ too_RG easy_JJ to_TO condemn_VVI certain_JJ forms_NN2 of_IO work_NN1 for_IF being_VBG apolitical_JJ simply_RR because_CS they_PPHS2 do_VD0 not_XX correspond_VVI to_II a_AT1 certain_JJ paradigm_NN1 of_IO immediate_JJ political_JJ effectivity_NN1 ._. 
Political_JJ interventions_NN2 can_VM also_RR work_VVI according_II21 to_II22 different_JJ time_NNT1 scales_NN2 ._. 
But_CCB if_CS the_AT cultural_JJ materialists_NN2 tend_VV0 to_TO place_VVI a_AT1 politics_NN1 rather_II21 than_II22 a_AT1 problem_NN1 as_II the_AT starting_NN1 point_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE enquiry_NN1 ,_, they_PPHS2 do_VD0 emphasize_VVI the_AT deployment_NN1 of_IO specialized_JJ knowledges_NN2 in_II the_AT service_NN1 of_IO the_AT popular_JJ political_JJ struggles_NN2 of_IO today_RT ._. 
This_DD1 suggests_VVZ a_AT1 closeness_NN1 to_II Foucault_NP1 's_GE notion_NN1 of_IO genealogy_NN1 that_CST the_AT more_RGR strictly_RR academic_JJ new_JJ historicists_NN2 ,_, whose_DDQGE own_DA politics_NN1 remain_VV0 more_RGR carefully_RR hidden_VVN ,_, ignore_VV0 ._. 
